July 20-24, 2009

Portland, Maine USA

ht 6 NI ET RNAT

OI

N

A

L

FISHERIES OBSERVER & MONITO

R

N

I

G

CONF RE NE EC

Conference Proceedings

2009

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-107

April 2010

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries 

Observer and Monitoring Conference 

Edited by Elan Nardi, Daniel Morris, Dennis Hansford, Catherine Purcell, and the 

2009 IFOMC Steering Committee, in collaboration with the conference 

participants. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-107 

April 2010

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Gary Locke, Secretary of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Jane Lubchenco Ph.D., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Eric C. Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
Suggested citation: 

NMFS. 2010. Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring 

Conference. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-107, 367 p. 

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed in these proceedings are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Mention of trade names or 

commercial firms does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 

The publishers do not warrant that the information in this report is free from errors or omissions. 

The publishers do not accept any form of liability, be it contractual, tortuous, or otherwise, for 

the contents of this report for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance place on it. 

The information, opinions and advice contained in this report may not relate to, be relevant to, a 

reader’s particular interest. 

Portions of this work are copyrighted. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act, the 

copyrighted parts may not be reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise, without the 

specific written permission of the copyright owners. Neither may information be stored 

electronically in any form whatsoever without such permission. 

The appearance of non-governmental logos does not connote endorsement by the Department of 

Commerce of the organization’s views, products, or services. 

All photos were taken by Sam Murfitt during the conference, unless otherwise specifically noted. 

A copy of this report may be obtained from: 

NMFS Office of Science and Technology 

National Observer Program, F/ST4 

1315 East West High Way, SSMC 3 

Room 12537 

Silver Spring MD, 20910 

Or online at: 

http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/TM107.pdf
PROCEEDINGS 

6th INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES 

OBSERVER AND MONITORING 

CONFERENCE 

Portland, Maine 

July 20th - July 24th 2009

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference

i 

Table of Contents 

Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... vii

Members of the International Steering Committee................................................................. viii

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1

Opening Session -Tuesday July 21st, 2009 ....................................................................................7 

Opening Remarks 

Dennis Hansford, National Marine Fisheries Service- 6th IFOMC Chair ...........................7

Welcome Remarks 

The Honorable Jill C. Duson, Mayor of Portland Maine ....................................................9

Guest Speaker 

John Annala, Ph.D, Chief Scientific Officer, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, USA ...11

Keynote Address 

Rebecca Lent, Ph.D, Director of the Office of International Affairs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, USA......................................................................................................19

SESSSION 1: What are the different types of monitoring programs available for collection 

of fisheries information? ..............................................................................................................33 

Overview of the Namibian Fisheries Monitoring System: The role of the fisheries observer 

program and the challenges that it faces 

Elwin Kruger, Namibia .....................................................................................................34 

The Scientific Observers Program: As a tool for sustainable management of the marine trawl 

fishing in Cameroon 

Pierre Meke, Cameroon ....................................................................................................36 

Inshore small vessel monitoring of cetaceans by observers 

Craig Loveridge, New Zealand .........................................................................................37 

The case for full retention in fisheries: Benefits for monitoring 

Jake Kritizer, USA.............................................................................................................38

The integration of commercial ground fish fisheries in British Columbia 

Barry Ackerman, Canada..................................................................................................40

A shore-based monitoring program in Alaska: catch monitoring and control plans 

Jennifer Watson, USA........................................................................................................41 

The fully documented fishery using electronic monitoring to improve the industry 

self-reported data 

Jørgen Dalskov, Denmark.................................................................................................43 

Monitoring Tuna Transshipments using observers 

Robert Trumble, USA ........................................................................................................46 
SESSION 2: How can fishery monitoring information be standardized and how can data 

quality be improved?....................................................................................................................59 

Standardized data collection formats: How important are they 

Larry Beerkircher, USA ....................................................................................................60 

The data collection regulation of the European Fisheries Commission 

Bjorn Stockhausen, Italy....................................................................................................62

The development of national standards for protected species observers in the U.S 

Kyle Baker, USA................................................................................................................63 

Challenges to data standardization between on-board and alternative platform observation on 

small vessels 

Michelle Paserotti, USA ....................................................................................................65 

Introducing e‐Monitoring into the mix of AFMAs monitoring options: Insights, benefits & costs 

Robert Stanley, Australia ..................................................................................................66

Computer science technology applied to data collection and data management 

Oscar Guzman, Chile ........................................................................................................67 

Evaluating the reliability of at‐sea observer release estimates in British Columbia groundfish 

trawl fisheries 

Matthew Grinnell, Canada................................................................................................69

SESSION 3: Using fishery monitoring information in assessments and management.........77 

Use of observer based surveys in monitoring and assessing environmental conditions imposed on 

developing fisheries 

Charles Gray, Australia ....................................................................................................78 

Sea turtle bycatch in U.S Mid-Atlantic gillnet gear: Characteristics, magnitude, and opportunities 

for conservation 

Kimberley Murray, USA....................................................................................................80 

The evolution of discard policy in Europe 

Lisa Borges, Belgium ........................................................................................................82

The Peruvian Anchovy Fishery Observer Program and its role in monitoring interactions with top 

predators 

Francis Van Oordt, Peru...................................................................................................84 

Fisheries observers and bycatch reduction research 

Lee Benaka, USA...............................................................................................................86 

Fisheries observer program in Sierra Leone and its implications for fisheries management 

Alpha A. Bangura, Sierra Leone .......................................................................................87 

Estimating bycatch and discards from observer data in tropical tuna purse seine fisheries: the case 

study of silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) in the Indian Ocean tuna purse seine fishery 

Justin Amande, Cote d’Ivoire............................................................................................88

SESSION 4: How can fishery monitoring information be used to ensure compliance with 

fisheries regulations?....................................................................................................................95 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program: Facing challenges in a challenging program. 

Sara Wetmore, USA...........................................................................................................96 

An introduction of the IATTC Tuna Transshipment Observer Program (Are we looking at a real 

solution to a worldwide problem.) 

Stuart Arceneaux, USA .....................................................................................................96 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference

ii 
The accuracy of yelloweye rockfish catch estimates from the British Columbia Groundfish 

Integration Project 

Greg Workman, Canada ...................................................................................................97 

Observers and the enforcement process 

Garland Walker, USA........................................................................................................99 

Enforcing observer victim crime 

Nathan Lagerway, USA...................................................................................................101 

Law enforcement concerns in international observer programs 

Todd Dubois, USA...........................................................................................................103 

Towards the integration of new technologies based on molecular biology, genetics, chemistry and 

forensics into a European framework for fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance 

Jann Martinsohn, Italy ..................................................................................................104 

SESSION 5: What factors should be considered when addressing access to fishery 

monitoring information? ...........................................................................................................111 

Public access to fishery observer data as a critical component of management 

Roger Flemming, USA.....................................................................................................112 

Data sharing and data accessibility in Canada 

Shelly Bond, Canada .......................................................................................................114 

When it rains it pours- a programs struggle to balance data collection with data dissemination 

Amy Van Atten, USA.................................................................................116 

A case study in agency implementation of statuses- The confidentiality requirement and 

associated exceptions under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservations Act 

Keith Hagg, USA.............................................................................................................117 

SESSION 6: What are the major factors impacting fisheries observers?............................127 

Minimizing the risk to observers from foreign charter vessels operating in New Zealand’s EEZ 

Alec Woods, New Zealand...............................................................................................128 

Description and logistics of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Observer Program 

Jeff Pulver, USA ..............................................................................................................129 

Multi-resistant bacteria: Concerns for observer programs and their field staff 

Simon Gulak, USA...........................................................................................................131 

Observer safety in the Gulf of Mexico 

Matthew Walia, USA.......................................................................................................133 

Anger management much? Using video dramatizations and hands on drills to desensitize 

observers with conflict and teach them how to resolve it successfully 

Sandra Vieria, USA.........................................................................................................134 

Assisting observers in bridging the gap 

Jennifer Lengares, USA...................................................................................................136

Observer support mechanisms 

Jennifer Patten, Canada..................................................................................................138

The art and science of juggling the increasingly complex observer work load 

Cassandra Donovan, USA ..............................................................................................139

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference

iii 
SESSION 7: How can self reported data by the fishing industry be improved for use in 

assessments and management? .................................................................................................149 

Fishery management by fishermen for fishermen: The area A Crab Association, taking a lead role 

Howard McElderry, Canada...........................................................................................150 

Good communication: The key to reliable results from self sampling 

Floor Quirijns, The, Netherlands....................................................................................151 

Ensuring accurate reporting: Examining incentive structure in fisheries management 

Flavia Chen, USA............................................................................................................153

Fisher based audit system in the BC Groundfish Fishery 

Andrew Fedoruk, Canada ..............................................................................................154 

Validation of study fleet data collection through SMAST Study Fleet Program 

Sally Roman, USA ...........................................................................................................156 

The representatives of the reference fleet data and how it is biased by changes in the dynamics of 

the Norwegian Mackerel Purse Seine Fishery 

Irene Huse, Norway.........................................................................................................157 

Comparison of self-reported logbook data with at-sea observations in the recreational headboat 

fishery in Florida and Alabama 

Beverly Sauls, USA..........................................................................................................159 

Self Monitoring System: An indigenous system developed by Sri Lankan fishermen-a case study 

in Southern Sri Lanka 

Prabhath Patabendi, Sri Lanka ......................................................................................161

SESSION 8: What specific issues are important to the fishing industry regarding fishery 

Monitoring? ................................................................................................................................167 

After Four Years: A fisherman's experience with the British Columbia Groundfish Integration 

Pilot Project. 

David Boyes, USA ...........................................................................................................168 

An inaugural case study in groundfish sector monitoring 

Eric Brazer, USA.............................................................................................................168

Development of Fishtrax, a reporting tool designed by fishermen for groundfish sectors 

Vito Giacalone, USA .......................................................................................................169 

Fishery Importance of safe and sound monitoring programs from a Fishery Management Council 

member 

Rodney Avila, USA ..........................................................................................................170 

New handling and accounting procedures on deck to reduce halibut mortality rates while 

improving catch accounting. 

John Gauvin, USA ...........................................................................................................170

Fishermen and the University of the Azores working together to observe the tuna fishery 

Elio Neves, Azores( Portugal) ........................................................................................171

Developing a monitoring program in the U.S. Atlantic herring fishery 

 Mary Beth Tooley, USA..................................................................................................172

Benefits of cooperative research as seen by the Gulf Fishermen’s Association in Florida 

William Ward, USA .........................................................................................................172

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference

iv 
SESSION 9: What specific issues are important to non-governmental organizations 

(NGOs) regarding fishery monitoring programs? ..................................................................179 

The Association for Professional Observers (APO): Strengthening fisheries monitoring through 

advocacy and education, since 1995 

Keith Davis, USA.............................................................................................................180

The application of observer data by NGOs in advancing policies for protected species 

conservation 

Elizabeth Griffin,USA......................................................................................................184

Data requirements in Marine Stewardship Council Certification 

Jay Lugar, Canada..........................................................................................................186

Fisheries monitoring in the recreational sector: Challenges and opportunities in the Gulf of 

Mexico 

Chris Robbins, USA.........................................................................................................187

Slippage in the commercial fishing industry 

Peter Baker, USA ............................................................................................................189

SESSION 10: How can observer capacity be developed and/or expanded? ........................205 

Capacity building in West Africa 

Teresa Turk, USA ............................................................................................................206 

Utilizing observers to collect social data about fishermen’s well-being 

Azure Westwood, USA.....................................................................................................207 

Fisheries observer program staffing strategies 

Michael Orcutt, Canada..................................................................................................208 

Should I stay or should I go? Observer retention and attrition in the WCGOP 

Ryan Shama,USA.............................................................................................................208 

Retention of observers in a global market 

Bryan Belay, USA............................................................................................................210 

SESSION 11: What are the monitoring issues with right-based managed fisheries?.........221 

Robust and accurate monitoring is the key to successful catch share management 

Melissa Sanderson, USA .................................................................................................222 

No data, no fishery- the crucial role of catch monitoring in providing access to fish resources 

Gordon Gislason, Canada...............................................................................................223 

Observers’ role in monitoring multi-species individual quota (IQ) programs 

Janell Majewski, USA......................................................................................................225 

How new quota systems aimed at stopping overfishing impact observer programs 

Craig Faunce, USA .........................................................................................................226

Count, cap and control-a comprehensive approach to managing fisheries mortality 

Gib Brogan, USA.............................................................................................................228

Rights based management of European Fisheries 

Graeme Parkes, UK ........................................................................................................230

Using fisheries observer based data in community based fishery management 

Alicia Billings, USA.........................................................................................................231

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference

v 
SESSION 12: How can electronic monitoring be used to improve data collection 

activities?.....................................................................................................................................241 

Electronic monitoring in the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Fishery 

Julie Bonney, Canada......................................................................................................242 

Electronic catch monitoring in New England’s Groundfish Fishery 

Melissa Sanderson, USA .................................................................................................244 

Using electronic monitoring to estimate reef fish catch on bottom longline vessels in the Gulf of 

Mexico: A pilot study 

Morgan Dyas, Canada ....................................................................................................244 

Assessing protected species interactions using electronic monitoring technology-a pilot study in 

New Zealand Longline Fisheries 

Andrew France, New Zealand.........................................................................................247

A new approach to monitoring protected species interactions with inshore trawl vessels. 

Stephanie Rowe, New Zealand ........................................................................................249

Summary of the North Pacific Electronic Fisheries Monitoring Workshop, July 2008 

Martin Loefflad, USA ......................................................................................................251

Concluding Session: Featured Conference Summaries.........................................................263 

Dennis Hansford, National Marine Fisheries Service, USA ........................................................263 

Keith Davis, APO Member and Observer, USA..........................................................................264 

Lisa Borges, European Commission, Belgium.............................................................................267 

Steve Kennelly, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Australia ...........................................270 

Ernesto Alatrimano, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission ...............................................275 

Extra: Workshops/Working Groups/Presentations................................................................285

Data Extrapolation Workshop ......................................................................................................287 

Observer Professional Working Group ........................................................................................295 

Moving Sushi Presentation...........................................................................................................307 

Safety Room.................................................................................................................................309 

Tuna Transshipment Observer Program.......................................................................................311 

Appendices..................................................................................................................................317 

1. Submitted Paper ......................................................................................................................319 

2. Observer Bill of Rights............................................................................................................337 

3. List of Exhibitors.....................................................................................................................339 

4. Conference Evaluations/ Impact Assessment..........................................................................345 

5. Conference Delegate List ........................................................................................................351 

6. Commonly Used Abbreviations ..............................................................................................363 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference

vi 
Acknowledgements 

The 6th IFOMC was successful through extraordinary energy and collaboration of all conference 

participants and through the generous support of many partners and organizations. The Chairman 

and Steering Committee would like to extend their gratitude and recognition to the following 

groups for their support of the 6th International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference. 

• Principal Sponsor, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service in the U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

• Major Sponsor: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 

• Conference Supporters: Gulf of Maine Research Institute; Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission; and Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

• Exhibitors, with their fantastic booth displays: Archipelago Marine Research, Ltd.; 

Olfish Dynamic data logger; NOAA Fisheries Service; NOAA Observer Map; A.I.S. 

Inc.; IAP Worldwide Services, Inc.; Lat 37 and Juniper Systems Inc. 

• The staff of A.I.S. Inc. for providing countless volunteer hours at the conference and for 

taking detailed notes as a back-up record of all the sessions. 

• Katherine McArdle and staff from the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program for 

coordination of the poster exhibit and scheduling all of the conference volunteers. 

• John Lafargue, (West Coast Groundfish Observer Program), Mike Tork, (Northeast 

Fisheries Observer Program),Ted Harrington and Kevin Plowman (U.S. Coast Guard), 

and their staff for coordination of the safety room, boat drills, and damage control 

training. 

• Amy Van Atten, Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, and staff for coordination of the 

Tools of the Trade Exhibit. 

• Lisa Borges, European Commission and Vicki Cornish, Ocean Conservancy, for 

coordination of a very informative Data Extrapolation Workshop. 

• Ms. Sally Page, the Director of Sales, and the wonderful staff at Holiday Inn By the Bay, 

for their hospitality, delicious meals, and for going the extra mile to provide a 

comfortable setting for a productive conference. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference

vii 
Proceedings of the 6

The 6th International Fisheries 

Observer and Monitoring Conference 

International Steering Committee

The Steering Committee was instrumental to the success of the 2009 conference. As pictured 

below, the members are (left to right)

Back row: 

Francis Van Oordt, Instituo del Mar del Peru 

James Nance, Ph.D., NOAA Fisheries,USA 

Andrew France, Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand 

John P. LaFargue, NOAA Fisheries, USA 

Catherine Purcell, Ph.D., Knauss Sea Grant Fellow, USA 

Greg Workman, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada 

Front row: 

Dennis C. Hansford, NOAA Fisheries, USA, Conference Chair 

Lisa Borges, European Commission, Belgium 

Teresa Turk, NOAA Fisheries, USA 

Mark Showell, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada 

Amy Sierra Van Atten, NOAA Fisheries, USA 

Howard McElderry, Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., Canada 

 

Not pictured: Charles Gray, Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales, Australia

th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference

viii 
Executive Summary 

The 6th International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference (IFOMC) attracted over 300 

individuals from over 37 countries, and all inhabitable continents around the world. In keeping 

with the spirit of the past IFOMC conferences, this conference served as a forum for discussion of 

crucial issues and topics facing fishery observing and monitoring activities throughout the world. 

This International discussion forum was held at the Holiday Inn by the Bay Convention Center in 

Portland, Maine, USA. The U.S National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology hosted this biennial event. 

Even before the official start of the conference, the energy at the preconference events set the 

tone for the level of participation and interest from delegates. Preconference events included: The 

Observer Professionalism Working Group; Vessel Safety Training, and “Moving Sushi” a Marine 

Resource Expedition” presentation. 

The Observer Professionalism Working Group was lead by the Association for Professional 

Observers, Keith Davis and focused on observer specific issues. Vessel Safety Training was led 

by John Lafargue and John McVeigh (from NOAA’s West Coast Groundfish Observer Program), 

and Ted Harrington and Kevin Plowman from the United States Coast Guard, and focused on atsea observer safety techniques and at-sea disaster mitigation measures. 

The Moving Sushi presentation was led by Michael Markovina and Linda Schoknecht, of South 

Africa. This inspirational presentation focused on documenting the current state of Marine 

Resources and the communities affected by Marine Resource Management decisions from many 

countries across Africa, Europe, and Asia. 

The Data Extrapolation Workshop was led by Vicki Cornish of the Ocean Conservancy and Lisa 

Borges of the European Commission. This workshop focused on issues involved in analyzing 

discard data coming from monitoring programs around the world. The objective of this workshop 

was to establish a set of common best practices in data extrapolation. 

The conference consisted of twelve panel sessions, with speakers leading approximately seven 

minute presentations each addressing important areas of interest such as factors impacting 

fisheries observers and how observer programs can be developed and expanded. A dynamic 

question and answer discussion between the audience and panelists took place after each set of 

panelist presentations. Along with the verbal panel presentations, many posters displayed more 

observer and monitoring related topics. 

We were very fortunate to have a variety of opening speakers extend a warm welcome to the 

conference delegates. After Dennis Hansford, the conference chairman, made welcome remarks 

and officially initiated the start of the event, Jill Duson, the Mayor of Portland, welcomed the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 1
delegates to her fair city. Guest Speaker John Analla, Chief Scientific Officer from the Gulf of 

Maine Research Institute, welcomed delegates and spoke on “Sustaining fisheries through 

collaboration.” Lastly, the keynote Speaker, Rebecca Lent, Director of NOAA’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Office of International Affairs welcomed and addressed the delegates with a 

talk titled: Looking ahead: Global approach to improving fisheries science and enforcement 

through observers.” The chairman and international steering committee would like to extend their 

appreciation to NOAA/ National Marine Fisheries Service’s Office of Science and Technology, 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, The Gulf of Maine Research 

Institute, and Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission for generously supporting the 6th

International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference. 

The concluding session of the conference featured closing remarks from Steven Kennelly (New 

South Wales Department of Primary Industries), Ernesto Altamirano (Inter-American–Tropical 

Tuna Commission), Keith Davis (Association for Professional Observers), and Dennis Hansford 

(NOAA Fisheries Service). These individuals presented conference take away points and 

conveyed their appreciation to all conference attendee for their dynamic, collaborative and 

interactive contributions, which made this conference successful. 

The following sections briefly summarize each panel session in the words of the respective 

session moderators. 

Session 1: What are the different types of monitoring programs available for collection of 

fisheries information? 

 

This introductory session was designed by the organizing committee to provide everyone with a 

background to the diversity, scale and scope of the various monitoring programs occurring 

throughout the world. The result was an excellent and diverse group of talks in this session that 

provided a solid start to the conference, covering a wide range of fisheries, oceans and ways to 

observe and monitor fisheries. The session began with descriptions of some quite large observer 

programs from places we don't often hear about (Namibia, Cameroon and New Zealand), with the 

New Zealand talk providing an opportunity to scale the discussion down to small-scale fisheries 

observer work. Next we looked at combinations of various ways to monitor fisheries including 

at-sea programs versus dockside work in the US and Canada. Next we headed to Denmark in 

Europe for an example of using electronic monitoring to improve self-reporting by fishers. 

Finally, we focused on a truly international example of fisheries monitoring that involves several 

countries, as the Inter-American-Tropical-Tuna-Commission deals with tuna trans-shipments at 

sea. 

Session 2: How can fishery monitoring information be standardized and how can data 

quality be improved? 

The types and uses of data collected from fishery monitoring and observer programs are 

exhaustive. Typically data collected range from the species compositions, lengths and quantities 

of retained and discarded catches, to biological and tissue samples as well as information 

concerning fishing gear and activity. As costs of data collection increase, there is significant 

pressure to collect more and more data in each program as well as develop systems that allow for 

greater data quality, transmission and availability. 

It is important within any monitoring and observer program that data are collected in a systematic 

and standardized manner. There is much debate as to whether data collections and systems should 

be standardized across different fishery programs. This would allow far greater and efficient 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 2
comparisons of data among programs, allowing for meta-analyses at scales greater than within 

each individual program. However, data standardization at such a scale comes at a cost. 

There have been significant advancements in fishery data collection systems in recent years, 

particularly those utilizing electronic capture and transcription of data. These systems can offer 

more efficient and safer means of collecting data as well as faster times to access and use the data 

for fishery management decisions. There is a continuing need for refining data systems across all 

types of fishery programs. 

This session addressed a critique of advancements and challenges concerning data quality and 

standardization. The benefits and costs of standardizing data collection across programs are 

debated. In the session, we are given overviews of the data collection requirements and standards 

in the fishery monitoring programs of the European Union and the USA protected species 

observer program as well as the challenges of standardizing data collection from alternate 

platforms in small-boat observer programs. We are also provided with demonstrations of the 

utility of electronic advancements in on-board data collection systems and the need for calibration 

and training in data collection protocols in fishery monitoring and observer programs. 

Session 3: Using fishery monitoring information in assessments and management. 

One of the biggest reasons for observer programs is to scientifically document the at-sea activities 

of a fishery. What are the target species and the level of catch? Is discarding of target and 

bycatch catch species happening and at what level? These are just a few of the myriad of very 

important questions that observer programs develop sampling designs to determine. Offshore 

sampling by observers is not a simple task, but it is critical task that is essential to assessment of 

stocks, and development of Fishery Management Plans and biological opinions. The speakers in 

Session 3 used their talks to outline the critical nature of the observer data for fishery 

management and assessment analysis in areas around the world. 

Session 4: How can fishery monitoring information be used to ensure compliance with 

fisheries regulations? 

Panel session four was the first "Enforcement Panel" prepared at these series of conferences. 

Session 4 Panel members hail from the United States, Canada and the Europe and discussed 

fisheries compliance, enforcement and how it improves the accuracy of landings statistical 

systems. Enforcement is essential to combating, reducing and eliminating IUU fishing, and also 

provides protection and support of fisheries observers. 

Enforcement is an essential aspect of fisheries monitoring worldwide, and here in this forum, we 

are set to have panelists present and discuss important issues that directly relate to fisheries 

compliance and observer programs worldwide. What technological advancements will aid 

enforcement efforts in the future? What challenges are being faced by enforcement officials and 

observers, and what international issues are observers and enforcement officials running into, and 

how is enforcement essential for data collection accuracy improvement? 

Session 5: What factors should be considered when addressing access to fishery monitoring 

information? 

What are the considerations that should be addressed when seeking access to fishery observer 

information? This question has given raise to valid concerns from resource managers, fishermen, 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 3
non-governmental organizations, and scientists alike. From perspectives ranging from; data 

collected by observers contain proprietary information thus making it confidential and nonreleasable to information collected on a public resource should be made completely available to 

the public. 

What are the rules for access to and confidentiality of data collected through public versus private 

funding? How can we gain access to proprietary and fishing operation information? What are the 

tools for accessing confidential information? What are the tools for proper data storage? 

In the U.S., the release of observer information is guided by provisions on confidentiality in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA Section 402(b)) and Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA Section 118(d) (8) and (9)). Under the MSRA, observer information is considered to 

be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except in accordance with certain exceptions. The 

MMPA also prohibits the release of information that is proprietary in nature. 

This session examined how these concerns are being addressed on an international level. 

Speakers were welcomed form various countries representing government and non-government 

organizations and shared their respective approach to accessing fishery monitoring data. 

Session 6: What are the major factors impacting fisheries observers? 

This session explored a wide variety of factors that affects observers. It includes everything from 

minimizing risk, safety concerns/health issues to fleet characteristics, outreach tools, support 

mechanisms and time management. As our observer programs mature and new ones sprout up, 

we all look to decrease the risk to observers as well as increase observer retention and data 

quality. The only way our programs can achieve these goals is to take a close look at the factors 

affecting our observers. 

Session 7: How can self reported data by the fishing industry be improved for use in 

assessments and management? 

Self-sampling programs are an emergent issue in fisheries monitoring as observer’s programs are 

expensive, and many countries around the world can only afford small percentage coverage of 

their fishing fleets. Self-sampling programs can be used to increase sampling intensity, data 

availability and data quality. At the same time, these programs have the advantage of increasing 

industry buy-in for scientific advice and associated management measures. In many countries, 

self-sampling schemes take the form of the so-called reference fleet, i.e. a group of volunteered 

vessels that are sampled systematically and extensively, and thus constitute the reference for the 

fishing activity/behavior of the whole fleet. 

Several panelists from different countries including Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Sri Lanka 

and USA discussed the issues associated to self-sampling programs, namely: incentives for 

industry participation; programs funding; use of reference or study fleets; protocols for industry 

training; credibility, appropriate uses and audit methods for self-reported data. 

Session 8: What specific issues are important to fishing industry regarding fishery 

monitoring? 

The eighth session was comprised of fishing industry representation from around the world. Our 

speakers come to us from Portugal, British Columbia, and the U.S. They addressed issues that are 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 4
important to the fishing industry regarding fishery monitoring. Among the topics our panelists 

will cover are; the impact of new innovative fishery management strategies on data collection 

activities, real-time bycatch management strategies, sentinel fisheries or cooperative research as 

mechanisms to improve fishery monitoring, costs issues and risk-benefit analysis of industry-led 

fishery monitoring programs, and outreach processes for successful implementation of fishery 

monitoring. 

It is important that viable valid methods are created to sustain our marine resources. This session 

addresses the primary users of that resource on the importance of working cooperatively with 

industry in developing monitoring programs and incorporating new technologies to ensure sound 

resource management. Are fishermen willing to take accountability and responsibility for their 

utilization of the resource? Are they concerned how the data is being collected and used? Do they 

want to have strong and open communications with the resource managers? 

Session 9: What specific issues are important to non-governmental organizations 9 (NGOs) 

regarding fisheries monitoring? 

Among the concerns are providing a forum for addressing issues important to non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs) regarding fishery monitoring is such as providing research and scientific 

advice, assisting in the development of best fishing practices, provision of funding for fisheries 

resource issues, and influence through litigation and the political processes are among them. But 

the primary reason involves the idea and challenge of possibly affecting changes for resource 

management through an organization not in the Federal sector. 

As a fellow member of the NGO community, I am pleased to present to you our speakers, 

Elizabeth Griffin from Oceana, Peter Baker from the Pew Environmental Group, Keith Davis 

form the Association of Professional Observers, Jay Lugar from the Marine Stewardship Council, 

and Chris Robbins from the Ocean Conservancy. 

Session 10: How can observer capacity be developed and/or expanded? 

• Building observer capacity and retaining experienced observers 

• Risks of increasing coverage levels too quickly 

• Flexible employment arrangements 

• Breadth of observer expertise/experience 

Observers from around the world record a wide range of information and collect a vast amount 

of data. The information and data collected is often essential to better management and 

enforcement of the world’s fisheries. There is an increasing need worldwide for more 

information and data to be collected to assist in the management of fisheries, and observers are 

often seen as the means to collect the required data and information. 

As observer programs are tasked with increasing their capacity levels to meet higher levels of 

coverage, there are risks associated with attempting to do this too quickly. An observer 

program’s greatest asset is in having high quality observers, and being able to retain high 

quality observers is a key factor in the success of any observer program. 

In this session we learn how established people are able to use their experience and expertise to 

assist developing observer programs, and how important and beneficial retention of experienced 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 5
observers is. We hear about a way to measure and manage happiness and hear some ways that 

established observer programs have tackled the issue of improving their retention of observers 

Session 11: What are the monitoring issues with rights based managed fisheries? 

Rights Based Management(RBM) is a relatively new idea and is gaining traction as a way to 

change the standard method of fisheries management that typically restricts harvest opportunities, 

processing capacity, and gear types. This session features speakers from the USA, Canada and the 

United Kingdom. It focuses on monitoring methods, observer relations and issues specific to 

rights-based managed fisheries. There are several rights-based management fisheries operating 

throughout the world, but are quite diverse with respect to their requirements, structure and 

implementation. The speakers discussed many of these right based management programs, and 

will explore new developments and the complexity of challenges and issues specific to rights 

based management. The session features talks that address the observer collected data, the crucial 

role of observers in these management setups, data accessibility, and monitoring methods. The 

session aims to discuss developments of rights-based management programs across several world 

programs. 

Session 12: How can electronic monitoring be used to improve data collection activities? 

Electronic monitoring technology typically consists of multiple closed circuit television cameras, 

a GPS receiver, a hydraulic pressure sensor, a winch sensor, and a system control box. EM has 

been deployed on variety of fishing vessels to monitor a range of fisheries issues including 

fishing location, catch, catch handling, fishing methods, protected species interactions, and 

mitigation measures. There are six presentations within this session, crossing broad geographies, 

fisheries and fisheries monitoring issues. In addition to these, the use of EM technology has 

infused the conference in several previous presentations speaking to its applicability in various 

other applications. 

Concluding Session

The closing session was designed to indentify various take away points from as many delegates 

as possible, and to summarize what was achieved, learned and what could be improved. A 

variety of closing speakers were identified. Those individuals include Steven Kennelly (New 

South Wales Department of Primary Industries), Ernesto Altamirano (Inter-American-Tropical 

Tuna-Ccommission), Keith Davis (Association for Professional Observers), and Dennis Hansford 

(NOAA Fisheries Service). All closing session speakers summarized the importance of the 

conference, what they identified as take home points, and the need for continued collaboration on 

these important issues with even more increased diversity from more countries and programs and 

interested parties for the 7th International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference. A few 

examples of take away points include the encouragement to check your data, compare results, and 

improve your sampling. Collaboration among countries, programs, agencies, organizations, 

industry, fishers, and all in-between is the key to improving worldwide fisheries. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 6
Opening Session

Moderator: Dennis Hansford, National Marine Fisheries Service, USA 

Welcoming Remarks: 

Dennis Hansford: NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

The Honorable Jill C. Duson, Mayor of Portland Maine, USA 

John Annala, Ph.D, Chief Scientific Officer, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, USA

Keynote Address: 

Rebecca Lent, Ph.D - Director of the Office of International Affairs, NOAA Fisheries 

Service Service, USA

Welcome, Call to Order, and Conference Charge 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

Welcome to the 6th International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference (IFOMC), and 

welcome to Portland, Maine. We have a very diverse group of delegates for this conference. We 

have continued a longstanding vision to develop, promote, and enhance effective fishery 

monitoring programs to assure sustainable resources management throughout the world’s oceans. 

Your attendance at the conference makes it clear you share that vision and that concern. 

One thing that we hope to accomplish to make this successful with your cooperation and 

participation is to improve the quality of fisheries monitoring data through sharing of best 

practices. Because this is such diverse group, we all bring a great breadth of experience to the 

table that will benefit each and every one of us, and that will be the key to the success of the 

conference. The panel session format of the conference, with each panel followed by 

opportunities for questions and discussion with all delegates, provides an opportunity to share our 

varied experiences. It’s a format that has worked in the past, and we expect it will be successful 

in this 6th IFOMC, as well. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 7
We have a wonderfully diverse group of delegates, and representatives from: 

Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Chile, Cameroon, Denmark, 

Ghana, Egypt, Italy, India, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Japan, Libya, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, 

New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines Portugal ( The Azores), Russia, 

Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, the Falkland Islands, United Kingdom, 

United States, and Vietnam. Welcome to you all. 

Other core topics for the conference are improving data accessibility, supporting the development 

of new and innovative data collection methods, and advancing the development of observer 

professionalism. We’ve been fortunate to have a working group, the Observer Professionalism 

Working Group (OPWG), working between the conferences and pulling together information and 

ideas about how best to support those individuals on the front lines, those observers who deploy 

on commercial fishing vessels to collect the data that is so much needed by our resource 

managers. They deserve our support and recognition, and this is the forum for doing just that. 

We have put together sessions for interactive sharing of information. Developing this panel 

format and the topics has been a group effort. Our international steering committee has made all 

of this happen. 

We have had several wellattended and wellreceived pre-conference 

events. Lisa Borges of 

the European 

Commission, along with 

Victoria Cornish of the 

Ocean Conservancy led a 

workshop on data 

extrapolation. The room 

was filled to capacity, and 

we had to add chairs to 

support the turnout for the 

workshop on this 

important topic and share 

ideas on improving effort 

estimation. 

Dennis Hansford’s opening remarks 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Another pre-conference event provided safety training for observers. Safety is an issue of critical 

emphasis in all of our observer programs in the United States. We are very concerned that our 

people who are out on commercial fishing vessels and experiencing the same risks as commercial 

fishermen are prepared to respond to any hazardous situations that may arise. For the observers 

in the audience and those who have gone to sea, you know how quickly events can cascade and 

how a small incident can grow into a disaster. John Lafargue, Michael Tork, and John McVeigh, 

along with support from the US Coast Guard, led vessel safety and survival at sea training. In 

addition to working on a commercial fishing vessel, they employed a damage control trainer, a 

tool that gives students an opportunity to patch pipes and hulls. The training the delegates 

received yesterday may save their lives some day. 

Yesterday, we also enjoyed a presentation, titled, “Moving Sushi, Marine Resource Expedition,” 

featuring still photos and videos from a pair of talented South African videographers. That 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 8
session touched on 42 countries that the couple plan to traverse and document resource 

management, decisions made and how the management affects the locals. They bring to the 

forefront the importance of collaboration between industry and government for ensuring 

successful management of the resource. Steering Committee member Teresa Turk initiated this, 

and was also instrumental in supporting and coordinating the travel of many of the African and 

Middle Eastern delegates who are in attendance. 

The conference consists of twelve topical panel sessions, each consisting of a moderator and five 

to seven panelists. Each panelist will make oral presentation, six to nine minutes each. After the 

presentation, the floor will be opened for questions and answers. The Q&A is really the 

important part. All delegates will have the opportunity and should speak out and ask questions. 

Posters are set up downstairs in the Casco Bay Room. I encourage you to meet the poster 

presenters and ask questions. Vote for the best posters. Ballots have been provided in your 

folders. Posters are marked to indicate which are by an observer and non-observer. We’ll have 

awards for the best in each category and the presentation will be made at the lobster banquet. 

We are honored today to have the mayor of Portland here to join us. The Honorable Jill Duson, is 

a former city council member and school committee chair member. She grew up knowing 

poverty, lack of health care, and limited educational opportunities. It is a great credit to her that 

she has overcome those obstacles to gain the position she currently holds. She has a reputation 

for involving citizens from all walks of life in the decision making process, and it is appropriate 

that she welcomes us to her fair city. 

Welcome to Portland, Maine 

The Honorable Jill Duson 

Mayor of Portland, Maine 

Welcome to Portland. Our city is honored 

to host the Sixth International Fisheries 

Observer and Monitoring Conference. 

Portland is proud of its long and rich 

fishing history. Portland is proud to be the 

home city of the Gulf of Maine Research 

Institute, a world-class research and 

education institution, and Portland is the 

perfect location for a conference such as 

this. I hope that while you're here, if you 

have a little extra time, you have the 

opportunity to visit the Gulf of Maine 

Research Institute, I hope you'll have a 

chance to take a walk. We have a 

beautiful walking trail along the harbor. 

I hope if you have the opportunity visit a 

couple of local events; if you are a 

baseball fan we are the home of the Sea 

Dogs, which is a Triple A League feeder team to the world champion Boston Red Sox. For our 

Mayor Jill Duson’s welcome remarks 

Mayor of Portland, Maine 

USA 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 9
international visitors, there is a soccer tournament going on Saturday in Fitzpatrick Stadium, 

which is right next door to the Sea Dog’s park. And lastly, at Deering Oaks Park all day Saturday, 

there is a Festival of Nations, which is an annual celebration of the diversity and features cuisine 

from many of the immigrant communities in Portland. 

But enough cheerleading for Portland and back to the serious business that brings you here. I had 

a chance to look at your conference program and I appreciate that each session will have a touch 

of talking at you, and then a lot of Q&A. So at this conference, you make sure that there is the 

opportunity to talk about and interact around what you most want to talk and interact about. 

The fishing industry is an incredibly important element of our city's vitality. It employs our 

residents, it feeds our economy, and in many ways it keeps Portland in touch with its history and 

culture. We pride ourselves on having a working waterfront where you can see the boats, smell 

the fish, and with a little salt and lemon, taste the hard work. We also know that to keep our 

working waterfront thriving and to keep this industry economically solvent we need to support 

policies and initiatives that learn from the past in order to plan for the future. 

Fisheries monitoring is an essential part of this strategy, as it fosters sound fisheries management. 

Collaboration among industry members, observers and monitors, technological innovators, 

scientists and regulators is essential to establishing and maintaining sustainable fisheries. The 

hardest part to tackling difficult challenges is getting the right people to come to the table and 

work together. I congratulate you all for seeing the commonalities, the need to look for 

sustainable environmental and economic solutions for the future of this important industry. 

Portland is truly excited to play a part in bringing such diverse groups together to partner in 

meeting common goals. Industry members can and should have a seat at the table and can help 

with the development of effective and economically suitable monitoring methods. We applaud 

the exemplary cooperation between observers programs and industry members to establish a safe 

work environment in one of the world's most dangerous occupations. Again, thank you for 

inviting me to part of your conference and to offer this welcome to my beautiful city this 

morning. Please make time to explore our dynamic and vibrant working waterfront during your 

visit. 

Introduction of Dr. John Annala 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

The Gulf of Maine Research Institute has graciously agreed to host the conference banquet, so 

we're going to have our lobster meal on a nice lawn out behind GMRI. They have also offered to 

give us a tour of the facility. So yes, some of us have experienced and are familiar with the 

outstanding contributions of GMRI. This renowned world-class organization is key to 

understanding the ecosystem in the Gulf of Maine. 

Speaking of Gulf of Maine Research Institute, our next speaker is the Chief Science Officer for 

the Institute. John Annala has worked with GMRI since 2004, but prior to that he spent nearly 30 

years on marine fisheries research stock and assessments and fisheries management issues in New 

Zealand. There, he was involved in fishery research and management for both in-shore and 

deepwater fisheries. He was responsible for managing the stock assessment activities of the 

Ministry of New Zealand that underpin the operation in New Zealand's quota management 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 10
system. He was also involved with the observer issues while in New Zealand, which makes his 

presence here that much more appropriate. He served as an advisor to national governments in 

Argentina, Australia and Canada on a range of fishery research and management issues and is a 

member of the National Research Council study reviewing the applications of individual 

transferable quotas here in the U.S. He has led delegations from New Zealand and other 

countries, and we are very fortunate to have John Annala here at this conference. 

Monitoring and Collaborative Data Collection in the Northeastern 

U.S.A 

Dr. John Annala 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

I'd like to second the welcome from Mayor Duson to Portland. It's a lovely city and hopefully 

you'll have time to get out and see a bit of Portland and the surrounding area. I know I've talked 

to a few of my New Zealand friends already and they have taken that opportunity in the lead up to 

the conference. 

Dennis phoned me up a couple of weeks ago and asked me to give a presentation in this 

morning's session. And I said, "Well what do you want me to talk about? This is not my special 

area of interest." And he suggested I talk about sustainable fisheries, the importance of 

collaboration and the importance of fishery observation and monitoring. So that's going to be the 

area that I'm going to be talking about. Here's an outline of my talk: I'm going to start off by 

talking about the importance of observing monitoring programs, and I know I'm talking to the 

converted, so it's going to be very, very high level. 

Then I'll give a brief summary of collaborative research in the Northeast part of the U.S. There's 

a very long history of collaborative research in this part of the world, going back to the late 

1800s, and it really has set the stage for a lot of the initiatives that are about to develop in New 

England. And that will lead me into my third point, which is the development of sectors in New 

England fisheries. I'll spend a bit of time talking about what sectors are about, and then the future 

role of observation and monitoring in sectors. Again, at-sea observers and electronic monitoring, 

potentially anyway, are going to play a very important role in making sure that sectors work. 

Lastly, I’ll speak about GMRI's role in northeast fisheries, and I'll cover the three-part mission of 

GMRI. 

I've always been a strong advocate for very active observer and monitoring programs, run by 

government agencies, by non-profits, and also by the fishing industry. When I started working in 

New Zealand fisheries in 1974 – and I'm originally from Maine and New Hampshire – I was 

grabbed and told, "You're going to go out on a fishing boat for a week." And that really started 

my career, in terms of valuing the data you can collect off commercial vessels. 

I think the approach that we took in New Zealand was to have all of the assessment people, all of 

the biologists and as many managers as possible get on board fishing boats and learn what the 

fishing industry is about, what they have to face and how we could work with the industry to 

collect the information that they actually have their hands on every day they're in the water. 

Obviously there's a lot of talk, particularly in New England now about dockside monitoring 

versus at-sea monitoring and I know that's going to be the focus for some presentations later on in 

the week. And that spills over into whether or not you should have observers on vessels or some 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 11
form of electronic monitoring to replace them. Obviously the data collected by observers and by 

some electronic monitoring programs, things such as catch, like species composition, discards, 

etc. are very important to the people doing this stock assessment, studying the quotas, and also to 

the managers. The other area that's very important in terms of observer data is the biological 

samples that you can collect on parameters such as length, weight, maturity, etc., and sampling is 

also important for tag returns. Observer programs often have a dual role in terms of dealing with 

compliance issues such as catch limits and areas. 

As I indicated, there's been a long history of cooperative research programs in the northeast 

region, particularly in New England. The first group (of about eight programs) is those that have 

been funded and administered by various governments, mostly the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). 

The largest in this category in terms of number of projects funded and the amount of dollars spent 

are the the Northeast Cooperative Research Partners Program and the Research Set-Aside 

Program. The program has been going since about 2000 and has funded over $20 million in 

cooperative research with the fishing industry. In the Research Set Aside Program a certain 

percentage of the quota is set aside, and the researchers submit proposals and then they actually 

have to negotiate with commercial fishermen to go out, harvest that quota, sell the fish and use 

the money from the sale of the fish to fund the research (very interesting approach that was 

started about five or six years ago). It's worked well in some fisheries, less well in others. About 

$10 million of research has been funded through that program. 

In terms of the non-government programs, the Northeast Consortium has been the largest 

cooperative research program in this region. It’s headquartered at the University of New 

Hampshire and again, they have funded over $20 million worth of research through that program. 

So this shows the history of collaboration in the U.S. It's been going on since the late 1990s, and 

I think the important point to be made is that during the term of this program, from 1999 to 2008 

about $120 million has been spent on collaborative research throughout the U.S. That's a lot of 

money. It's resulted in a lot of work and a lot of very good results. And in addition to that, many 

of the NOAA fishery science centers have also conducted cooperative research activities using 

their base funding. 

I'll just highlight two of the programs. One is the Cooperative Research Partners Program, 

funded out of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. The three main objectives of the program 

are to enhance and improve data used for management, to expand communication and 

collaboration among fishery participants, scientists, and managers – this is extremely important to 

get scientists out on fishing boats and to actually get them collaborating. Then the third, again 

equally important, is to utilize fishermen's empirical and ecological knowledge of the marine 

environment. 

One of these programs that GMRI has been very active in is called the Study Fleet. This is an 

electronic system where a statistical sample of the total fleet or a specific subset of certain 

fisheries (those in which the data available for assessments is poor) is equipped with electronic 

logbooks and measuring gear. The vessels are actually paid to report detailed catch location, 

effort, discards, and the gear they're using, and they also collect other biological information 

during the course of their normal fishing operations 

Another major program is the Northeast Consortium, they took a slightly different track. They 

established an advisory committee made up of stakeholders, so there were scientists, fishermen, 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 12
environmental non-governmental organization, recreationalists, and managers who developed the 

major objectives for the program. 

A number of the projects funded through the Northeast Consortium were initiated by fisherman. I 

know that at GMRI a number of fishermen have come to us over the years. I've lost track of the 

number – it's up probably close to 100, with a bright idea they had to conduct a bit of research. 

And we worked very collaboratively with the fishermen to actually shape out the scope of that 

research proposal and carry out and implement the project at sea. 

So again, the objectives are: 

develop partnerships between 

commercial fishermen and 

scientists, educators and 

coastal managers, (not to be 

underestimated, believe me), 

enable commercial fishermen 

and commercial fishing 

vessels to participate in the 

collaborative research, and to 

develop selective gear 

technologies. 

One of the gear programs that 

was funded through the 

National Marines Fisheries 

Service funded program, the Cooperative Research Partners Program, won the WWF Smart Gear 

Award two years ago. That was the eliminator trawl that Phil Ruhle and others developed. And 

that's been a very good success story. NOAA Fisheries Service is currently implementing the 

spread of that gear through some cooperative research money funding that they have available in 

2009 and 2010. So that should substantially reduce the by-catch of cod in the target haddock 

fishery. That's been one of the hot-button issues in New England for a number of years. 

Dr. John Annala, Chief Scientific Officer 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

USA 

The third is to help bring fishermen's information, experience and expertise into the scientific 

framework for fisheries management, and the fourth is to equip and utilize commercial fishing 

vessels as research platforms. Now again, there's a lot of overlap between the program objectives 

for the Northeast Consortium and the NOAA Fisheries Service Cooperative Research Partners 

Program, as there should be. I would be concerned if there wasn't. 

Since the program started in the late '90s, early 2000s, there've been now over 1982 collaborative 

research projects that have been funded. That's a lot of research on the water using commercial 

fishing boats. The project topic areas have been primarily gear technology, but also fish biology, 

socio-economics and education, habitats, ecosystems and oceanography and also stock 

assessment. At last count, between all of the cooperative programs in the New England area, 

there've been over 500 fishermen engaged in research, and over 200 research scientists. That's a 

lot of outreach. 

I'd like to switch over to sectors and to talk about how the collaboration that's developed in New 

England has actually contributed to the update of sector development in New England. One of 

the issues with sector development is that there are landings in over 70 ports around New England 

(landings of ground fish). So any implementation of sectors is going to be a challenge in terms of 

observation and monitoring. Landings have come in from more than 600 vessels. In 2006 there 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 13
were more than 18,000 trips, and more than 32,000 days at sea. This is going to present a very 

large monitoring challenge. 

So what is a sector? A sector is probably likened mostly to a fisheries cooperative. I think most 

people have heard about the Pollock cooperative in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. That is 

basically what the sector is. It'll be allocated some proportion of the total allowable catch or 

quota. By definition, a sector is a group of persons holding limited access vessel permits who 

voluntarily enter into a binding agreement with each other and the government to limit their total 

catch to a fixed share of the TAC (total allowable catch). This is going to be a very large move 

away from the existing system in New England, which is a regulatory system, based on days at 

sea and trip limits. 

In exchange for staying within their allocated TAC, the sector will develop some of its own 

management measures and thereby avoid the effort controls and trip limits applied to the common 

pool. One thing that's interesting about the move towards sectors in New England is that vessels 

can opt not to join a sector and stay in the common pool. So that's going to present some very 

challenging compliance and monitoring issues. And the overall goal of sector management is to 

enable fishing businesses to become more economically efficient while allowing fish stocks to 

continue to rebuild. 

A lot of people aren't aware of the good news story in New England with regard to fish stock 

rebuilding. There are 19 stocks that make up the ground fish complex, and they're mostly on their 

way to rebuilding to what in the U.S. parlance is called – moving away from being overfished and 

from being subject to overfishing to a positive state. The total biomass in the Gulf of Maine has 

increased by sixfold over the last 15 years. That is mostly due to the increase in haddock, but the 

trend and the abundance of most fish stocks in this area is increasing, and most are on track to 

reach their rebuilding targets by the target date , however, not all are. 

In June of 2009, the New England Fishery Management Council met. The main focus of the 

meeting was what's called Amendment 16, which is the amendment that regulates the groundfish 

fishery in New England. The Council passed some very momentous decisions. Effectively they 

gave sector formation the “go ahead”, and the requirements are that the sectors must submit a 

proposal one year in advance. A final operations plan, a contract, and an environmental 

assessment due September 1st, which, (at the time of the conference) is less than six weeks away. 

The sectors must then design and implement an industry-funded dockside monitoring program by 

May 1st of next year, again, not that far away, and apply and assume discard rate to their allocated 

TAC unless they have an at-sea monitoring program in place. There are some real challenges 

facing the New England fisheries and this move towards sectors, all in a very short time. 

What are the advantages and disadvantages to being in the sector? Advantages are that sector 

manages design and management system for themselves that meet their own needs. The major 

condition is that overall catch does not exceed their allocation. They can transfer allocations, 

which are called annual catch entitlements between vessels within the sector, and they have the 

ability to request exemptions from certain regulations such as rolling closures in the Gulf of 

Maine. The Gulf of Maine is a patchwork of what are called rolling closures which are certain 

areas are closed at certain times of the year. So they can request that they be exempt from those. 

Disadvantages include significant administrative costs, the entire sector may be shut down if one 

TAC – a TAC for one species or stock is reached or a member violates certain provisions of the 

operations plans and following on from that, members are what's called jointly and severally 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 14
bound to each other. Bad actions of one member may impact the entire sector and their ability to 

fish. 

These are some more specifics: you need at least three people to form a sector, and approval has 

been given to move forward with 19 sector proposals. There are two sectors in existence already 

and then there are 17 new ones proposed. As I indicated, vessels that choose not to join a sector 

will remain in the common pool. Sectors can transfer annual catch entitlements between sectors, 

not only internally but between. One requirement from the National Marine Fisheries Service is 

that random dockside monitoring of 50% of the trips need to take place by 2010, so that's 

monitoring 9,000 trips – not insubstantial – and that's next year, and decreasing to 20% in 2011 

onwards. 

There's also going to be less than 100% electronic monitoring and at-sea monitoring in 2012, but 

the move will be towards increasing that substantially. There will be area specific reporting for 

all vessels. I mentioned the joint and several liabilities; these are the categories that it applies to: 

overages, discarding illegal size fish and misreporting catch. There'll be weekly and annual 

reporting of sector catch and activities so that the catch can be monitored as it approaches the 

TAC. 

GMRI has been involved from the beginning in working with the industry to provide them with 

basic information. For example; about what sectors are, what sectors are about and how they can 

be developed and implemented, provided assistance to the industry that included catch histories, 

preparing initial proposals, drafting operations plans, developing environmental assessment 

documents, administrative training and support and other issues. 

We're going to be involved in facilitating development of dockside monitoring programs. We 

just learned the week before this conference that we were being funded through a pool of money 

to work with the industry to facilitate that. We are going to be developing a pilot study to develop 

commercial vessel electronic trip reporting. 

This is just a very quick overview of how the future might look, using a combination of electronic 

monitoring, video monitoring perhaps at sea with the vessel fishing log and dockside monitoring 

that will form, in some fashion, and official trip records that can be used by the sectors to report 

on their activities. 

Just very briefly I'll touch on other related programs of GMRI. We're a private, non-profit 

institution, we have three arms: science, education and community. And you will find out a lot 

more when you visit the Institute. We will be offering guided tours, especially of our very 

innovative, forward-looking educational facility. We actually have received funding from a 

combination of foundations, corporate and individuals to bring in 90% of all Maine's fifth or sixth 

grade students to learn about marine science, and that's at no cost to the school. We bus students 

from Fort Kent, which is further from Portland than New York City is, at our cost. 

The GMRI science program: We are working in fishery ecosystem research and management; we 

have a team of nine scientists working in fisheries ecology, modeling, economics, gear 

technology, oceanography. In the area of fishing gear technology, gear technologist Steve Eayrs, 

who's here as a delegate, has been involved in a number of gear technology programs and in 

developing an environmental management system which I'm sure Steve can talk about at some 

stage. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 15
The Marine Resource Education Program is a highly innovative program that we've been running 

in New England for the past four years, where we teach fishermen, managers, regulators, 

scientists, etc. about stock assessment and management. Mary Beth Tooley, who sits on the 

Council, is on the board of the group that oversees the Marine Resource Education Program, and 

we've recently received funding to extend that to the South Atlantic and to Hawaii. 

We recently learned that we were selected to be part of a Cooperative Institute for the North 

Atlantic Region. This is a NOAA funded institute with four other institutions in the area of 

marine ecosystem research. 

I would like to acknowledge these people: Earl Meredith from the Cooperative Research Partners 

Program, Rachel Fenney from the Northeast Consortium, Howard McElderry, who most of you 

know, from Archipelago Marine Research, Bruce Turris from Pacific Fisheries Management, and 

Cindy Smith and Jonathan Labaree from GMRI who are the drivers behind our sector initiative 

program. Thank you. 

Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Question 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Thank you again, John. There was so much 

information in that presentation and it raised 

some questions, at least in my mind. I've 

asked John if he would field a couple of 

questions. You mentioned gear technology, 

and I knew the fishermen Peter and Phil 

Ruhle, – one of whom unfortunately lost 

their life at sea, and they've developed some 

new gear technology. My question is, in 

developing this under the auspices of the 

government, does it get the chance to move 

to the private sector, and how does that 

work? 

Response 

John Annala 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

USA 

That's a very good question, and there are 

probably people in the audience that can 

answer much better than I. As I indicated, 

there's some money becoming available 

through – well I'll backtrack a bit: Jane 

Lubchenco, the new director of NOAA has 

made quite a bit of money-a total of $16 

million to advance sector development in 

New England, and about $6 million of that 

goes into what's called cooperative research. 

My understanding is some of that $6 million 

is going to be used to build some more of 

the eliminator trawls or the Ruhle trawl as 

some people refer to it. Unfortunately Phil 

Ruhle lost his life in a fishing accident not 

so long ago. The intention is to get that out 

for the industry to use. 

Now the intellectual property issues around 

that I'm not quite sure about because it is 

federally-funded, so by federal law it has to 

be freely available. It was developed by 

Rhode Island Sea Grant, which again is a 

public institution. So my guess is that it has 

to become freely available. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 16
Question 

Vicki Cornish 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA

It's very helpful for me to see how sector 

management is developing in the Northeast 

so I appreciate the overview. I saw several 

references to electronic monitoring which is 

great to see that being incorporated as part 

of the sector management program. I also 

saw references to at-sea monitors and I was 

wondering if you could just elaborate a little 

bit on what the difference is between at-sea 

monitors and the fisheries observers. Thank 

you. 

Response 

Dr. John Annala 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

USA 

 

I think it's yet to be worked out what the 

difference will be between the NMFS 

observers or contracted observers and what 

observers might be contracted by the fishing 

industry, so it's work in progress as we move 

down towards the at-sea monitoring and 

sectors. I know it doesn't answer your 

question but that's where we're at at the 

moment. This is all fairly new.

Comment 

Lisa Borges 

European Commission 

Belgium 

I work for the European Commission, which 

is basically the government of the European 

Union. The eliminator trawl has been tested 

in the US and now, testing has started in 

Europe in many fisheries. It has been tested 

for the North Sea cod fishery to try to avoid 

the catches and the by-catches of the 

recovery stock, which is in very poor state. 

I think we put a lot of value in it and the 

possible applications of it in the fishery. 

I write speeches for the Commissioner of 

Fisheries, and we often support the use of 

the eliminator trawl. So it's very very 

present in Europe. Thank you for that. 

Comment 

John Annala 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

USA 

The development of the eliminator trawl was 

an interesting process. GMRI was funded to 

work on a different design as well as 

University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. 

So there were three research groups working 

in parallel on different designs, and the final 

result was that what is now called the 

eliminator trawl produced the best results in 

terms of reducing by-catch of cod and 

retaining haddock. So that's why that was 

implemented. So it's a very interesting 

process of actually putting a lot of minds, 

taking different approaches to addressing 

one problem, and getting what I think is the 

best result.

Question/ Comment 

Kelly Schmidt 

A.I.S., Inc. 

USA 

What parameters will you use to measure 

the success of sectors?

Response 

Dr. John Annala 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

USA 

That's a very good question. Another 

proposal we had funded last Friday was to 

work with a local company called Market 

Decisions, it's done a lot of socio-economic 

research in New England to develop a 

survey to determine what the success rate is 

of sectors. So it hasn't been developed yet, 

but we're certainly planning on doing so, 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 17
working collaboratively with the various 

regulatory agencies. 

Question 

Jennifer Lengares 

A.I.S., Inc. 

USA

Have you had any feedback from the fishing 

industry and the fishermen as to how 

receptive they are to this sector program and 

if it seems like something that's going to be 

better received than the current regulations 

that are in place?

Response 

John Annala 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

USA 

Not everyone is embracing the idea of 

sectors, so they do have the opportunity to 

stay in the common pool and fish under not 

necessarily the current regulations. I think it 

is fair to say that the reception has been 

mixed, but by and large positive, viewing it 

from an outsider's perspective. 

Introduction of Dr. Rebecca Lent, Keynote Speaker of the 

6th International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

Dr. Rebecca Lent serves as the director for our Office of International Affairs. Previously, she 

was Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs at NOAA Fisheries Service, a 

position she held from 2001 to 2007. In that capacity, Dr. Lent reviewed all of the NOAA 

Fisheries Service' proposed regulatory actions, including those to support protected resources, 

sustainable fisheries and habitat conservation in 

both the national and international forums, 

which served as a good springboard from that 

position to her directorship for the International 

Affairs. 

She has broad experiences in dealing with a 

wide variety of conservationists, businesses and 

communities. You can see an overriding theme 

in much of our efforts here is concern for the 

environment, inclusion, and collaboration. 

Rebecca exemplifies these ideas. I've been 

fortunate enough to work with her not only in 

the realm of science but also in the area of 

workplace diversity. She's been a staunch 

supporter of educational outreach for students 

and programs, such as Blacks in Government. 

We are very appreciative that she can find the 

time out of her busy schedule to welcome us and take part in this conference 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 18
Keynote Address 

Improving Global Fisheries Science, Management and 

Enforcement: The Role of Observer Programs 

Rebecca Lent Ph.D. 

Director, Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service, USA 

Hello, bon jour, buenos dias, salaam alaikum, good day! 

Thank you very much, Dennis. Thanks to all the organizers. It's really a pleasure to be here. It's 

somewhat humbling. Dennis didn't tell you this but I am actually an economist by training. I'm a 

resource economist, and I've had a lot of experience working with biologists, oceanographers, and 

people with the so-called “hard science” background, although I always thought that economics 

was pretty hard. It's also dismal, so when you blend it with declining stocks, it gets to be tough. 

I am humbled to be here and to address you. I've been here since Sunday and I've had the 

opportunity to watch the crowd come and go and mix and people see each other. I've noticed 

there's a real camaraderie among the ranks of the observers. It makes me think a little bit about 

being in a convention of ex-Peace Corps volunteers. I'm not an ex-Peace Corps volunteer, my 

sister is and some of my best friends are ex-Peace Corps volunteers. I think there might actually 

be a little overlap between Peace Corps volunteers and observers. But I really am envious of that 

tight relationship that you have. That's great. 

When I was in graduate school at Oregon State I had a friend down the hall from me in my 

apartment building who was a fisheries biologist, and she went out on a Korean boat. When she 

came back and told me about her adventures as an observer I thought, "Oh man! Too bad they 

don't hire economists." 

I have had a chance to go out on some commercial fishing boats as a regulator. When you go out 

on a fishing boat you really learn a lot. You get a sense of how much you can learn and how 

important it is for us to understand what actually happens on the boat – understand the fishermen, 

and understand their situation. So it's great to be here, great to see a lot of diversity in this crowd 

as well. I'm old enough to remember the days when the first women went out as observers, and it 

was tough. I know some of you were actually trailblazers. 

First I’ll give an overview of the status of the world's fisheries, probably stuff you already know 

but just give you the latest statistics, talk about why generally things aren't so great, as we know 

and what we might be able to do about the situation, and then what's the role of observers in 

solving some of these problems, looking at observer programs at the domestic and multilateral 

level, and then where do we go from here. 

So the statistics of capture and production (other than statistics from China which are always 

filtered out from the Food and Agricultural Organization, statistics) basically show that, things 

are pretty much flattening out. We've pretty much reached our cap in terms of total marine 

capture at around 82 million tons at an ex-vessel value of $90 billion. 

These are some of the top producing Countries: China, Peru, U.S. – those are primarily due to the 

large volume – The below figure indicates the top production by volume. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 19
 

Interesting to look at where this fishing happens. As you know as observers, most of this fishing 

is going on pretty close to shore. That's where the richest fishing grounds are on the continental 

shelves. But over the years there's actually been an increase in the average depth of the fishing, 

which means we're going farther out and we're going deeper, and of course there are deepwater 

trawling issues and concerns. 

The above marine capture fisheries production chart is ordered this is by species. You can see 

some of the large volume fisheries, our friends from South America (the anchovy fishery); 

Alaskan Pollack, (big volume fishery); the tunas, skipjack and yellowfin. So those are some of 

the biggest ones by volume. Those top ten are about 30% by volume. So overall if you add up the 

stocks that are fully exploited, overexploited and depleted, it's over 3/4ths of the fisheries that can 

stand no more expansion and in fact they need to be retracted. 

So what's going on and how are we going to make this situation better? We need to remember 

that it's not just about the stocks, it's about how the stocks play in our nutrition, in our culture, in 

our very survival About half of the total animal protein in some developing nations comes from 

fish products, and as incomes rise and your diet diversifies you are eating more fish. Also, 

consider the expanding middle class. Think about a country like India where the middle class is 

just booming and those who are not vegetarians would be eating more fish. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 20
This chart shows what share of animal protein comes from fish. You can see in some of the 

developing world, particularly our friends from West Africa, are eating a lot of seafood. It's a 

very important protein source. 

So what's going on? Why do we continue to have overfishing? Why do we have stocks that 

continue to decline? Well in some cases, there's just no management at all. We're hoping that 

we're addressing that problem as quickly as we can. In some cases, we don't have enough data, or 

the data have not been analyzed. In some cases, and this is the most shameful part, I think, we 

have the data, we have the science, we just are making the wrong decisions. We're not basing our 

decisions on science. That’s one we can do something about. It won't be easy, but we can. 

Finally, the problem of IUU fishing – illegal, unregulated, unreported fishing, which we'll touch 

on quite a bit. I will argue that in all these cases, observer programs are critical, and we should be 

developing observing and monitoring programs. 

For the lack of scientific data analyses, sometimes there just isn't a data system in place. You 

have some efforts out there through development projects, capacity building projects, to improve 

on the data collection systems. Sometimes the data do come in but they're not analyzed. I will 

tell you, right here in the United States there are boxes full of forms that have been completed 

where the data have not been crunched because we don't have someone who can write up the data 

or we don't have someone who can enter the data and get it into a computer system. There are 

data out there that have never been analyzed, believe it or not. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 21
Again, a shameful part of our history is poor compliance with data requirements. I'm currently 

serving as the U.S. Commissioner to the International Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Last year we had a stock assessment for eastern Atlantic and 

Mediterranean Bluefin tuna, an extremely important stock commercially, recreationally, and a 

stock that's not in very good shape, frankly. We had a stock assessment. The scientists got 

together, and only three countries had submitted their data in time for the stock assessment, and 

they represented 12% of the quota. 

I want to congratulate my colleagues from Turkey and Morocco who are here who are two of 

those three countries. It's a challenge sometimes to get your data in, particularly depending on 

the timing of your fishery, but it was so bad that the scientists actually had their chair write a 

letter to us, the commissioners to say, "Don't do this. It's a lot of time and trouble and expense to 

come to these meetings and we have to fudge around and use this limited data as indicators.” 

That's a problem. We've got to deal with that. 

Lack of adherence to science is where with the political will, with the pressure, we can make a 

difference. But we continue to have fishery management decisions taken (where for one reason 

or another, primarily I think fishing pressure) to continue overfishing, ratchet down the quotas 

more slowly than we should, and sometimes even set quotas where the overfishing continues, and 

that is unfortunate. 

Sometimes uncertainty is used as an argument, saying, "Well you know, in the stock assessment 

the error bars are so huge around these estimates, we just don't feel right putting people out of 

work for something that's so uncertain.” Well, of course, the precautionary approach to 

management tells us that we should be taking a precautionary approach where we don't have 

information or where the error bars are huge. Politically, it is difficult. So what do we end up 

with? We end up with legal overfishing. 

Alright, let's talk a little bit about IUU fishing. I think you all know what IUU fishing is. For 

example, you have a regional fishery management organization, you have a vessel that is flagged 

from a state that's a member, but they're not complying, or you have a vessel that's flagged from a 

state that's not a member, and it's coming in and not fishing according to the rules. You could 

have domestic regulations in EEZ with the closed area and vessels entering the closed area. There 

are all kinds of forms and we don't want to forget the form which is non-reporting. 

I have fresh news from my friend, Michelle Kuruc, who just showed up from the FAO. The 

estimated economic impacts of IUU fishing globally can go as high as $23 billion. So this is in 

foregone revenues that might otherwise go into the pockets of legal fishermen. Obviously there's 

an impact on the resource, not just the target stocks but also by-catch or any affected habitats. 

There are tremendous social impacts. If you watched the “Moving Sushi” video that Linda and 

Mike showed us, you know that some of this illegal fishing is right alongside some community 

fishing, right alongside local fishermen going out in smaller boats. There's also a link with drug 

trafficking and with human trafficking. Some of the crew on these boats that are out virtually for 

years, they're indentured slaves. 

In addition, those boats can sometimes be used for moving people. So that's another reason to 

combat IUU fishing. You all know that there's a link between IUU fishing and what's going on 

off of Somalia with the piracy as well. 

The scientists, of course, lose data. With all the fishing that is going and the produced fishing 

mortality makes it more difficult to do the stock assessment. In some cases – I know this happens 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 22
in ICCAT, the scientists actually work with a broader community to try to figure out what the 

actual catches might have been, based on looking at trade data, or looking at other sources of 

information and say, "Well, if the actual catches were really that high, this is what the stock 

assessment results would look like." However, it these are estimates. 

I'll focus on West Africa, an area where we've been working closely with our partners. This is a 

major area of IUU fishing, in some cases up to 40% of the catch is estimated is illegal catch. 

Sometimes where we have access agreements, we have seen accounting irregularities. You see 

something like a month report that has exactly 100 metric tons every month – how can that be? 

They might not have an observer on board. There's a lot of concern about what's going on in that 

part of the world. 

 

So how do we address IUU? One of the areas that folks have been focusing on is tracking the 

trade. Seafood is one of the most traded products in the world. That's because you can't fish for 

seafood in Kansas City. Obviously it has to be traded, it has to be moved around. Up to 200 

countries are in the export market and a lot of countries are in the import market. Total world 

exports are over $85 billion, so there’s a lot of value added. If we can track the international 

trade, we can maybe get a handle on what is going on. 

There is an interesting example from NOAA Fisheries Service staff who work with highly 

migratory species in Gloucester, Massachusetts. A French boat caught a tuna, and then they took 

it to a Turkish farm. It was then shipped to Italy, and then to Boston. The people in Boston said, 

"Well I'm going to send this to Japan," So it went to Japan, and then Japan said, "Well, we don't 

really want this fish," Perhaps it was a lower quality bluefish. The whole trip of this fish was 

nearly a year. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 23
It was shipped it back to North America, to Canada and the United States, so that's one fish 

making a global journey. Think about the carbon footprint. It's pretty amazing. 

I should point out that both the United States and the European Community have recently 

implemented some rules that say we're going to take steps so that we don't buy any more illegal 

product and avoid importing IUU product. As major markets, along with Japan, we can really 

make a difference by just saying, "We're not going to buy it." So those processes are underway, 

we also have some regional fishery management organizations that have implemented trade 

restrictions and have banned trade from certain countries. 

I want to mention the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES. They 

have increasingly looked to marine species, to the marine world, for things like corals or great 

white sharks, species where there's a lot of trade – wherever there's a lot of trade or where there's 

concern about trade as a driver for this illegal fishing. CITES are the people who also ban trade 

on ivory and bear claws and things like this, but, increasingly, they are looking at the marine 

world as well. 

Last week we heard that Monaco has proposed to list on Appendix 1 -- which indicates no trade is 

allowed -- North Atlantic bluefin tuna. France has backed the proposal, the UK has backed it, 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 24
and I just learned that the Netherlands has backed this proposal. It's kind of interesting. France 

and the UK to a small extent actually fish for bluefin tuna, so it's pretty surprising to see what's 

going on there. 

For some people it's a wake-up call, saying, "If ICCAT, the commission that's supposed to 

manage these fisheries, doesn’t do its job, then someone's going to step in and take trade 

measures. So ICCAT will still set the fishing quotas, but the price is probably not going to be as 

high if it can't be exported to Japan." 

Now to address observers in IUU fishing: Obviously observers and other monitoring onboard the 

boat provide the richest possible data. You are looking at bycatch and habitat and fishery 

information – what's really happening on the boat, not just the target catch. By the time you are 

looking at the trade of the fish, you are just looking at the target catch, you don't know what the 

bycatch was when those products were fished, you don't know about the habitat impacts if it was 

a trawling type gear. 

Trade data also exclude domestic consumption. Sometimes that can be a huge hole. That's why 

in some cases such as Patagonian toothfish, there's actually a catch document that goes with the 

product, no matter where it goes, even in domestic markets. 

The other thing is when you're an observer on a boat, you're actually looking out at the sea and 

you can see the other boats that are out there and what's going on. Any observer here ever 

witnessed what looked like a flagless vessel or some illegal fishing going on? Anybody? Is that 

generally included in your reports that you make back? (Audience member, “yes”) Good. I 

know this has happened in the tuna and dolphin fishery observer program in the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific, so that's important. You're out there and you're on the water. 

And the last point, a point that I repeatedly make in these regional fishery management 

organizations when there's a lot of pushback on expanding observer programs. We understand 

that it's difficult and expensive. It can, in some cases, interfere with fishing operations if we don't 

do a good job of planning all that, but I know you guys are pros at that. But when we are looking 

for solutions to bycatch, or think of the problem of seabirds, and we're putting in measures, like 

you have to have line shooters, you have to throw your offal off the side, you have to do all these 

things: it's really important to get the observer's input on that before we design the measures. 

What are you actually seeing when the boats are fishing? How does it work? When are they 

baiting the hook? How fast is that going? What are the danger points? This is where you play a 

role in helping the managers’ design more practical, more useful, and more likely to be complied 

with. And even once they're in place, taking a look the first fishing season to see how is this 

working out? That's the practical aspects we really depend on you for. You are our eyes and ears 

on the ocean, our best and usually only source of direct information on the water. We thank you 

for that. 

Now let me touch a little bit on domestic versus multilateral programs. Obviously in our own 

countries we're developing our domestic programs – that's the foundation, that's where we start. 

But increasingly, we're talking more and more about observer programs in the multilateral realm, 

and that's great. 

In the case of some high seas fisheries, it's the only way we are allowing transshipment. I think 

trans-shipment otherwise might be banned if we didn't have the possibility of observer programs 

for trans-shipment. We need to work on standardizing and harmonizing data (to the extent that 

we're providing these observer data for our scientists) even within the national programs. The 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 25
IATCC, the agreement for the dolphin conservation program in the eastern tropical Pacific, as 

you know it's 50/50. You can have up to 50% of your own country's observers and 50% of the 

international observers, but all the training is the same, all the approaches, all the procedures. So 

that is really beneficial, and of course, we’re working together on some best practices. 

You know that the world is divided up into regional fishery management organizations. Five of 

them are for tuna. There are a number of other ones. There are two huge new organizations just 

now under negotiation, and those are in the South Pacific Regional Fishery Management 

Organization and the North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Organization, also known as 

SPRFMO and NPRFMO, but these are some new agreements that are being negotiated for the 

non-tunas; that is to address the high seas bottom-trawling (an issue just under negotiation.) 

Rebecca Lent., Ph.D- Director of the Office of International Affairs 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

USA 

So that's what the world is divided up into and they are paying more and more attention to 

observer programs, which is why I'm happy to learn some more about it. 

A couple of weeks ago a few of us in the room were at the second summit of the world’s five tuna 

FMOs. They met and talked about things like capacity and enforcement and overfishing. There 

will be a workshop on monitoring control and surveillance issues that will be hosted by Japan. 

One of the ongoing debates that we have in ICCAT is this: Should observers be out there for the 

science or should they be out there for enforcement? We're trying to argue that they can do both, 

but we don't necessarily want observers reporting violations as soon as they see something 

whacky. There could be some unfortunate accident at sea. We think that really compromises 

their personal situation. So the idea is (and you know this better than I do) to write down 

everything that you see and hear, and when you get home you just submit your report and go on 

about your way. I know in the United States it could be that two years later down the line an 

observer could be called into a courtroom just to say "This is what happened: they hauled in this 

stuff and they had this and they kept that." 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 26
So we see it sort of as a continuum. The tuna trans-shipment program would be at the left end. I 

would say the tuna-dolphin program is more enforcement oriented, although you're collecting a 

lot of rich scientific data. You are getting both. The Canadians may be closer to using their 

programs for enforcement and compliance. The US is closer to science. And down on the right 

end of the continuum the Antarctic program is purely for science. So it’s just a continuum, and I 

think we can work with this. 

I would like to introduce TrudiAnn Prince and Samantha Brooke. TrudiAnn and Samantha have 

been working on a map that was started a couple years ago. Back then you put your pushpin in 

the map to show where your programs are. We're looking at, at least 40 domestic observer 

programs and a number of regional fishery management observer programs (RFMO). Please 

make sure that your program is on the map. It looks like we're getting the planet covered. Maybe 

in a few more years there will be no more blue. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 27
Obviously what we're looking for in working multilaterally is some regional standardization. 

That allows us to save a lot of money, save a lot of effort, particularly when we start combining 

the data and putting the data all in one database and exchanging knowledge and technology. You 

lose all of those efficiencies if every group is developing its own program on its own. It's a large 

waste of money. 

One of the things that regional fishery management or multilateral approach entails is working 

with other countries. So we have gone to Ghana and to Senegal and we're on our way to 

Cameroon to work with our partners in those countries to do joint training. We learn about their 

program and we try to share some of our technology, and that's a good thing. 

Bob Trumble will be speaking about the international consistency in the tuna transshipment 

program, because tuna are a global product. A boat So it might come around South America, go 

from one to two to three to four different Regional Fishery Management Organization regions, 

and obviously you don't want the boat to have to go into port and take a different observer. You 

want this all to be harmonized so it's seamless. 

So what is the future? Definitely there has to be increased monitoring, through observers, 

through logbooks, through the new technologies that are being used for electronic monitoring. 

There's a lot of excitement about that. I know folks in Japan are particularly interested in that. 

Observers are going to be a key component of that, working carefully, collaboratively with the 

managers, with the scientists, with the fishing industry to make sure this is a good combination. 

Make sure too that we're distributing observer effort, because it is expensive. We can't do it 

100% everywhere – that wouldn't be efficient. We need to make sure we're doing the right 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 28
distribution and optimizing the resources, both human and natural, and where appropriate, taking 

a regional approach. 

I just want to close with a reminder that observers have pretty tough working conditions, pretty 

much like our fishermen. You have to have all kinds of specialized training, and I understand the 

pay is not that great, there are harsh and dangerous conditions, and it is definitely a job that 

requires a lot of dedication. So for that I want to thank all the people who work for good observer 

and monitoring programs, and I thank you for your attention. 

Question and Answer (Keynote) 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Thank you, Rebecca. We're going to open 

up with floor to any questions you might 

have for Rebecca. 

Comment 

Bob Trumble 

MRAG Americas 

USA 

When you were talking about IUU, bringing 

monitoring in to the observer field, and sort 

of expanding that role – do we need to start 

looking at the next phase, beyond at-sea 

monitoring and looking at traceability? 

How do we get the product tracked across 

all of these chains, going from the 

Mediterranean all around the world to 

finally come back to the U.S. for the second 

time? There are a lot of ways you can 

launder that product, and traceability 

through a variety of mechanism will allow 

that to happen, but that's – if we start 

bringing that in, that's a whole new arena. 

That's almost a project by itself. We need to 

think about how far do we want to take this? 

And as we start addressing IUU and some of 

these issues that are really important that 

observers deal with, we may need to start 

looking at some of these other kinds of 

programs to help with that. 

Response 

Rebecca Lent 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Thank you very much. I think traceability is 

definitely something that's on the rise. It's 

part of the so-called eco-labeling schemes 

that are being adopted. Under the European 

Commision’s program, by saying they are 

not going to buy any IUU product, they are 

encouraging countries to have traceability 

systems to make sure that they know that the 

product came from a legally-licensed vessel 

that was part of the regular management 

program. 

I think it has to be on a parallel track, 

because again, you have the problem that by 

the time you trace the product it's already 

fished; something's already happened out on 

the sea and you don't know what happened. 

You can surmise based on observer data or 

logbook data from the legal vessels, but you 

lose a little bit of information. I think it 

needs to be dual track. The nice thing about 

traceability -- entities like the EC who say 

"we're not going to buy the product -- is it 

would help countries like the US, So 

traceability helps stop the flow and maybe 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 29
that gets back to the illegal fishing and it 

stops because it's not profitable anymore. 

Question 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

You mentioned about ICCAT and some 

other RMFOs using other entities to 

augment their data and information on 

effort. Is there any movement to formalize 

relationship with those entities so there's a 

continuing source for data?

Response 

Rebecca Lent 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

By entity do you mean other companies or 

other countries? 

Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

When you mentioned it I didn't get a sense 

of who you were talking about when you 

said they provided them additional 

information. I thought maybe NGOs, or 

what. I guess that's part of my question too. 

That's why I was asking are there any moves 

to formalize this relationship? Who are they 

and is there going to be some formal 

pathway for ongoing source of data from 

them?

Response 

Rebecca Lent 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Generally when I use the word "entity" it's a 

code word for Taiwan. It can also be used 

as a code word for the EC 'cause you can't 

really call the EC a country, but those are 

big participants in the fisheries. 

I would mention, since you brought it up, 

that ICCAT -- I'm not sure about the other 

RFMOs -- but ICCAT does use information 

from the environmental NGOs as part of 

their compliance assessment process. So at 

the beginning of the compliance committee 

meeting for ICCAT, there are reports that 

come from Greenpeace or Oceana or other 

NGOs that are out there on the ocean and 

taking pictures. It's being treated as 

something that can be introduced. It's not 

necessarily introduced as gospel, but it is 

something that countries definitely need to 

be aware of and respond to. So I hope that 

answers your question. 

Comment 

Georg Hinteregger 

Observer 

USA 

 

Just to follow-up on what Bob Trumble 

mentioned about traceability: we tagged 

turtles with pit tags. Are you familiar with 

those? I know it wouldn't be a suitable 

technology for smaller fish, but in the case 

of giant blue fin tuna, would pit tags be 

useful? 

Response 

Rebecca Lent 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Well, actually tags are used to identify fish 

and to track them through the documentation 

throughout the system – the U.S., Canada, 

China's going to start – Japan does it as well, 

tagging individual fish. Now they're not 

tags with electronic monitoring. I think that 

would be something fairly expensive – it 

would certainly be thorough. Now the only 

problem is once you start cutting fish up, 

you would have to have tags on each piece. 

When we cut up the shipments under the 

ICCAT program, and there a lot of people in 

here that know more about this than I do, the 

number that's on the original tagged fish 

goes with each shipment so we can trace it 

back.

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 30
Question 

Imam Zainudin 

WWF 

Indonesia 

I’m attending this meeting because we have 

actually initiated an observer program four 

years ago. We have advanced activity in our 

observer program. However, so far we’ve 

experienced some challenges. The 

acceptance for the observer program within 

Indonesia is actually getting better. Before 

the Government got involved, the NGOs and 

industry would fight each other. We are now 

slowly but surely gaining trust from 

industry. 

The problem right now facing the observer 

program in our government is the 

enforcement aspect. We try to supervise 

IUU regulations from AU, allowing 

countries to be impacted from this policy. 

Then we have tried to initiate ideas on how 

to reduce IUU in our country. We use 

observers, and we try to conduct workshops 

with boat captains and enterprises. Now we 

have gotten buy-in from the government on 

the observer aspect, as they want additional 

tasks from the observer/monitoring 

workshops and to record IUU cases. 

Then boat captains indicate that if effort is 

put forth to record IUU, then the observer 

would be tossed off the boat. This is very 

bad. I need your suggestions or 

recommendations about this issue because I 

think observers play a very important role. 

The government agrees about this issue. The 

industry will have a big problem if this 

continues. 

Response 

Rebecca Lent 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

That is really interesting input from your 

part of the world. It sounds like a new 

program that's starting up and you have in 

this room a wealth of people with a lot of 

experience in observer programs. It sounds 

like there are some issues related to having 

observers there for IUU as opposed to just 

observations, and I'm sure there's a way to 

address this in a fashion saying "These are 

the folks that are going out and just 

recording what's happening. They don't 

make any phone calls. They don't make any 

reports. They hand their report over to the 

boss and the boss figures out anything that 

might have come out of that.” 

I mean it has to be safe for the observers – 

otherwise the program isn't going to work. I 

think it helps in the United States and maybe 

some of the U.S. industry members can help 

me out here, but when there is an open 

public transparent process with a lot of 

participation from industry in designing the 

program from the get-go, then there's 

probably going to be more buy-in and 

people are going to be more accepting of 

having this stranger on their boat who's 

going to eat their food and take a sleeping 

berth. But it needs to be done with caution, 

with care, with a lot of input from all of the 

parties concerned: scientists, observers, 

fishermen – everybody needs to be a part of 

the process where you design the program 

and then hopefully it works a little better. 

Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I would add that during the course of the 

conference we're going to have sessions that 

will hopefully give you some ideas on how 

you can train your observers to deal with the 

documentation as they recognize infractions 

and how that's reported up the chain of 

command. In the U.S. programs we've had 

our observers face some situations likewise 

where they are intimidated if they report 

what they see, and we've cultivated training 

for our observers in how they can document 

that, as well as given certain circumstances 

placate the captains or whoever it is that's 

causing the intimidation. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 31
The bottom line is it's still something that 

we encourage them to report on, whether or 

not they get a chance to document it, which 

is the ideal course of action. That 

information needs to get back to the 

program, and where is the gentleman? We 

should talk further afterwards, see if we can 

put you in touch with some of our program 

managers that may be able to offer you some 

further insights on how best to have your 

observers deal with situations like that. 

Rebecca, I thank you for taking your time to 

be here for this, as well as for the duration of 

the conference. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 32
Panel Session 1: 

What are the different types of monitoring programs available 

for collection of fisheries information? 

Moderator: Steven Kennelly, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Australia 

Speakers 

Elwin Kruger – Namibia 

Overview of the Namibian Fisheries Monitoring System: the role of the fisheries observer program and 

the challenges it faces 

Pierre Meke – Cameroon 

The Scientific Observers Program: as a tool for sustainable management of the marine trawl fishing in 

Cameroon 

Craig Loveridge – New Zealand 

 Inshore small vessel monitoring of cetaceans by observers 

Jacob Kritizer – USA 

The case for full retention in fisheries: benefits for monitoring 

Barry Ackerman –Canada 

The integration of commercial groundfish fisheries in British Columbia 

Jennifer Watson – USA 

 A shore based monitoring program in Alaska: catch monitoring and control plans 

Jørgen Dalskov – Denmark 

The fully documented fishery using electronic monitoring to improve industry self-reported data.Bob 

Robert Trumble – USA

Monitoring tuna transshipments using observers 

Introduction to the session 

This first session of the 6th International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference is 

entitled, "What are the different types of monitoring programs available for collection of fisheries 

information?" This introductory session was designed by the Organizing Committee to provide 

everyone with a background to the diversity, scale and scope of the various monitoring programs 

occurring throughout the world. The result was an excellent and diverse group of talks in this 

session that provided a solid start to the conference, covering a wide range of fisheries, oceans 

and ways to observe and monitor fisheries. The session began with descriptions of some quite 

large observer programs from places we don't often hear about (Namibia, Cameroon and New 

Zealand), with the New Zealand talk providing an opportunity to scale the discussion down to 

small-scale fisheries observer work. Next we looked at combinations of various ways to monitor 

fisheries including at-sea programs versus dockside work in the US, Canada and Alaska. Next 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 33
we headed to Denmark in Europe for an example of using electronic monitoring to improve selfreporting by fishers. Finally, we focused on a truly international example of fisheries monitoring 

that involves several countries as the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission deals with tuna 

trans-shipments at sea. 

Overview of the Namibian Fisheries Monitoring System – The 

role of the fisheries observer programme and the challenges it 

faces 

Elwin Kruger 

Fisheries Observer Agency, Luderitz, Namibia 

By the time Namibia became independent in1990, many important fish stocks and other marine 

resources in the Namibia waters had been severely depleted following decades of poorly 

regulated and unsustainable exploitation1

 . After independence the Exclusive Economic Zone was 

declared and the new government, realizing the potential role that the sector could play in the 

national economy, implemented management policies, laws and regulations geared towards 

optimal and sustainable harvesting of marine resources and the establishment of a local fishing 

industry. The Fisheries Sector is the third largest contributor to the national economy and in 2007 

this sector accounted for 27% of export earnings for the country and by then the industry 

provided direct fulltime employment to 14 000 Namibians2

. 

This study provides an overview 

of the Fisheries management 

and monitoring system in 

Namibia and also highlights the 

role of the Fisheries observer 

programme within the system. It 

further highlights some of the 

challenges faced by the 

Fisheries Observer Agency 

(FOA) in Namibia. 

The constitution of the Republic 

of Namibia dictates for the 

maintenance of ecosystems, 

essential ecological processes 

and biological diversity and 

further require that living 

natural resources be utilized on 

a sustainable basis for the benefit of all Namibians, both present and future. In line with this the 

White Paper on Fisheries Policy laid out the goal of sustainable utilization based on the strategies 

of rebuilding stocks, establishment of an national fisheries sector, accruement of benefits to 

Namibians and the empowerment of the previously excluded Namibians due to policies in place 

before independence3

. 

Elwin Kruger 

Fisheries Observer Agency, Namibia 

Management measures in place include limiting the number of participants in the fishery by the 

requirement for Rights of exploitation while output control like TAC’s and Individual nontransferable quotas limit fishing effort. Input control measures place restriction on capacity 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 34
 

applied in the fishery and is regulated by fishing licences. Other control measures include area 

restrictions and fishing seasons. In a shift to move away from the single fishery management 

approach towards the ecosystem approach, Fisheries Managers in Namibia is currently in the 

process to design management plans for the different fishery that would allow fishing within 

ecological limits. To this end the country declared its first marine protected area (MPA) on the 2nd

of July 2009. 

The monitoring regime in Namibia allows for information to be collected from different sources. 

Inspectors of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources monitor all the landings of catches 

in port. Fishing logbooks provide catch and effort data while fisheries observers collect biological 

sampling data from fishing vessels. In order for such management measures to be effective it 

requires a rigorous monitoring, control and surveillance system. In Namibia an integrated 

programme of inspection and patrols at sea and on land, fisheries observers as well as a Vessel 

Monitoring system is in place to ensure compliance to legislation. 

Number of data sets collected by fisheries observers from 

2007 to June 2009

The role of the fisheries observer programme in Namibian fisheries monitoring system is to report 

on compliance issues while fishing vessels are at sea and also to collect scientific and biological 

data. Information collected in the sampling programme includes length frequency data for key 

species, sex determination and sexual maturity data, otolith collection as well as catch 

composition data including data on by-catch and discard4

. Observers also verify logbook entries 

onboard vessels by counter signing. The existence of the observer programme further ensure that 

the country meets is obligations in terms 

of International agreements and 

conventions, like ICCAT, CCMLR and 

South East Atlantic Fisheries 

Organization, to which Namibia is 

signatory to. The table on the right 

highlights the number of data sets 

collected by fisheries observers from 2007 

to June 2009. 

Column1

Number of 

Stations Sampled 

Number of 

Fishing Days 

2007 9174 9888

2008 11756 13843

2009 6330 42960

Challenges faced by the Fisheries Observer Agency. 

The dependency from the fishing industry as the only source of income to the Fisheries Observer 

Agency (FOA) is a major challenge as this accounts to about 98 % of the total income. The 

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources contribute about 2 % of the annual budget. Whereas 

the levy charged to the industry is based on the number of observer days spend at sea salaries are 

paid irrespective whether an observer goes to sea or not. This is having a major impact on the 

sustainability of the Fisheries Observer Agency as the existence of the institution is dependent on 

the performance of the fishing industry in Namibia. 

Whereas the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources are responsible for the basic training of 

observers and borne the cost associated with it the FOA is responsible for all costs associated 

with salaries and benefits of Observers for the duration of all training. Thus the FOA has little 

control over the observer training programme. The negligible training budget allocation also 

hampers succession planning and career path development. 

Other challenges relates to the urgent need for equipment like GPS devices, digital cameras, 

binoculars as well as computer equipment and office infrastructure. In order to overcome these 

challenges the FOA identified possible alternative sources of income like deployment of 

observers on international waters. This could only be realized if skill levels of observers are 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 35
 

further developed. A training department also needs to be established within the organization that 

would take over all training activities. 

Notes: 

1. Boyer, D. C and Hampton, I. 2001. An overview of the living marine resources of Namibia. South 

African Journal of Marine Science 23. 

2. Namibia Trade Directory 2008. 

3. MFMR, White Paper on Fisheries Policy, 1991. 

4. MFMR, Grade 1 Observer Training Manual, 2003

The scientific observers programme as a tool for sustainable 

management of the marine trawl fishing in Cameroon 

Dr Meke Soung Pierre Nolasque, Veterinary, Economist (MA)1 

Head of the Brigade of Control and Surveillance of Fishing Activities 

Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal Industries 

Cameroon with almost 17,476,497 inhabitants and a coastal length of 402 km, is the core of 

intense fishing activities. It is a multi-species fishing region, contributing to 1.7 percent to the 

GDP (2003). Since the 1970’s there has been a constant change in the fishing effort strategy in 

the fishery where shrimp vessels are dominant, 30 on average against 16 trawlers, targeting the 

pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis) and very recently the tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon. The various 

stocks assessments surveys conducted since 1982 and from 

2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, show an overexploitation of the 

coastal resources. Due to economic importance and high value 

of the target species, depressed catch rates and economic 

returns are being experienced, which necessitates the need for 

effective management. 

Dr Meke Soung Pierre Nolasque

Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries 

and Animal Industries, 

Cameroon

Due to the business environment and the decrease of the 

resource base, most of the vessels in the area buy fishing 

licenses in two or three countries. Since the early 1990s, due to 

lack of national investors, the country implemented the so 

called Time-charter. Moreover, after the Cameroon self ban on 

exports of shrimp products to Europe Union countries, all the 

shrimps fished by those vessels are exported fraudulently to 

neighbour countries, contributing to heavy losses in terms of 

export taxes estimated at 2 billion cfa f/annum since 2002. The 

losses in value from lack of landing and declaration of catches 

was estimated at 15 billion cfa francs per annum for around 

1117 million tons of shrimps and 4 billion cfa francs for fish 

7500 m. tons (Meke, and Njifonjou, 2007). (Take 1US$=500 

cfaF.). 

The Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal industries is 

responsible of the fishery policy through licensing. However, 

there have been an increasing number of vessels. No closed 

season has been decided yet. Economic objectives of the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 36
 

fisheries have never been considered. Law enforcement, one of the weaknesses of the 

management has gone through very important changes with the creation of Monitoring Control 

and Surveillance Brigade in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Since 2006, a vessel 

monitoring system (VMS), with satellite Argos, is operating and only vessels equipped with 

transponders/transceivers are allowed to fish. A plan against illegal and unreported fishing (IUU) 

has been validated. Within the framework of the GEF/UNEP/ 201/project, Cameroon conducted 

some sea trials on the use of the BRDs and TEDs in the trawl fishery and experienced two years 

scientific observations on some shrimpers. This contributed in building a knowledge base on bycatches and discards from shrimp trawlers. 

This paper, examines how effective can be a scientific observer programme in fishing effort data 

collection, as well as other biological and socio-economic data for a sustainable management of 

fish resources. In management strategies, the government should make a choice between heavy 

investment on VMS associated with patrol boats or set up a thorough efficient scientific observer 

programme or a combination of both. 

Notes: 

1. The author submitted a lengthy paper which is reproduced as an appendix to these proceedings. 

Monitoring inshore fisheries using observers 

Craig J Loveridge 

Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand 

Introduction 

In October 2008, our Minster of Fisheries decided to prohibit set netting and trawling in various 

inshore areas. These measures were intended to avoid, remedy and mitigate the effect of fishing 

related mortality on Hector’s and Maui’s dolphin populations. These iconic dolphins are 

endangered and protected by New Zealand law. 

The new measures were predicted to have a large impact on the inshore fishing industry. The 

Minister’s decision acknowledged that there was uncertainty related to actual dolphin distribution 

and the level of negative fishing interactions. Increased monitoring of the inshore fishery was 

needed to determine if the new measures were effective. Increased monitoring would also be 

used to assess levels of remaining risk in areas where dolphins and fishing still overlapped. 

Methods

The best way of satisfying the increased monitoring objectives deemed to be placement of 

observers aboard inshore vessels. Inshore observing had been attempted in the past, but achieved 

coverage had been very low (~0.5%) and relatively expensive. This would not have resulted in 

enough coverage to be able to ascertain the effectiveness of the closed areas, so a new model 

needed to be developed. 

University students provided a ready source of labour during summer. This correlated well with 

the most intensive fishing period. Groups of newly trained observers were based in ports where 

active vessels where known to operate from. Each pre-identified vessel was issued with a 

placement notice so that they were obliged to carry an observer for the programme period. Each 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 37
 

observer was specifically trained to record marine mammal and fishing interactions on small hand 

held GPs units. Initially 45 observers were trained and the programme aimed for 900 sea days of 

coverage over the summer period. 

A high level of coverage was needed for various reasons including: 

Reduction of chance of, and bias, due to altered fisher behaviour 

Detection of fishing interactions and captures 

Assessment of the effectiveness of management decisions 

Determining the remaining overlap between dolphins and fishing operations 

Results/Discussion

Increased observer coverage in inshore fisheries using traditional methods would have been 

prohibitively expensive and impractical. Using the new model 963 sea days were delivered 

against a plan of 900. 30% of the inshore fishery was observed and the coverage was achieved at 

a 25% reduced cost. This was the greatest amount of coverage achieved to date in the inshore 

fishery. 

Overall there was a high level of “buy in” and co-operation from fishing industry. However, the 

coverage requirement on top of area closures meant that some previously active fishers tied up 

their vessels during summer. A minority of fishers refused to comply with the placement notices 

and continued to fish without carrying an observer. Fortunately, other fishers who had not been 

initially approached offered to carry observers. 

The programme recorded 115 protected species captures (mainly seabirds). Encouragingly, there 

were no captures of either Hector’s or Maui’s dolphins. 

The programme showed that Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins are found outside the closed areas and 

that there is still interaction with fishing operations. A full analysis of the data is required to 

determine the effectiveness of the management decisions and the level of risk remaining to the 

dolphin populations. This observer coverage is set to continue, and the requirement to carry 

observers will be shared across the inshore fleet. 

The case for maximized retention in fisheries: Implications for 

monitoring 

Jacob P. Kritzer*1, Alan Lovewell2,3, Christopher Brown4, and Emilie Litsinger1 

Environmental Defense Fund, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.1, 

New England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, Massachusetts, U.S.A.2, 

Monterey Institute for International Studies, Monterey, California, U.S.A.3, 

Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association, Point Judith, Rhode Island, U.S.A.4

Introduction

Maximized retention is a fisheries management policy that aims to minimize wasteful discards by 

either encouraging or requiring that all or most fish caught are retained and brought to port. 

There are ethical, economic and ecological reasons for adopting a maximized retention policy, as 

well as potential drawbacks in certain cases (e.g., when discarded fish would have survived and 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 38
reproduced). However, in most cases maximized retention is likely to provide the greatest net 

benefit, and is therefore receiving increasing interest across the globe. Enforcing maximized 

retention calls for effective monitoring, but monitoring limitations can in turn determine which 

policy options are feasible. We examine the implications of maximized retention for monitoring. 

Methods

We briefly review several case studies to highlight approaches, benefits and challenges faced with 

a maximized retention policy, and then discuss general lessons from these examples. 

Results and Discussion

Norwegian Discard Ban

In 1987, Norway implemented a ban on discards for 19 species of pelagic and demersal fishes 

and invertebrates. Monitoring is based on a combination of at-sea surveillance by the Coast 

Guard and dockside monitoring by the Directorate of Fisheries. Although this approach cannot 

detect all violations in the absence of observers on vessels, the Ministry adopted the ban as a 

matter of principle even in the face of incomplete effectiveness1

. 

Scottish Discard Reduction Strategy

Norway has called for other European nations to take equally aggressive action in reducing or 

eliminating discards, and Scotland has arguably been the nation that has done most to answer the 

call. Scottish fisheries policy calls for reduction and eventual elimination of discards. However, 

inability to effectively monitor a ban has resulted in this being a goal rather than a requirement to 

date. Instead, Scotland aims to achieve maximized retention through a combination of spatial and 

gear controls resulting in more selective fishing2

. 

British Columbia Groundfish

British Columbia’s groundfish fishery operates under a catch shares system involving allocation 

of tradable individual vessel quotas. Full or maximized retention is not required for all stocks. 

However, 100% monitoring by either at-sea observers or video systems, depending on gear, 

allows full accounting of catch and deduction of discards from quotas using assumed discard 

mortality rates. This incentive-based approach has resulted in a significant decrease in discards3

.

Pacific Whiting Shoreside Fishery 

Shoreside whiting, one component of the larger U.S. Pacific groundfish fishery, faces problems 

with salmon bycatch. Rather than requiring discarding of salmon at sea, Amendment 10 to the 

groundfish FMP calls for maximized retention to account for salmon bycatch mortality in port. 

Since 2007, vessels in the fishery have been required to employ electronic monitoring systems, 

which will now be used to enforce maximized retention for vessels allowed to land salmon under 

an exempted fishing permit4

. Receivers of the product in port will require third-party catch 

monitors. This system sets the stage for implementation of a forthcoming ITQ system. 

Southern New England Winter Flounder

This stock is severely depleted, and in fact cannot meet rebuilding timelines even with F=0. 

Some harvest is inevitable due to interactions with other stocks, so catch limits based on estimates 

of unavoidable bycatch have been adopted. An industry proposal under consideration calls for 

creation of a study fleet that would be allowed to retain all flounder caught in the large mesh 

fishery in exchange for receiving higher levels of observer coverage, collecting biological 

information on all fish caught, and providing biological samples as requested by NMFS. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 39
 

New England Community Supported Fisheries

One non-regulatory approach to achieving maximized retention is creation of community 

supported fisheries (CSFs)5

, which currently operate in Port Clyde, Maine and Gloucester, 

Massachusetts. CSF shareholders share risk with fishermen, accepting whatever is caught each 

week, including high-value species and most others. This can potentially be achieved without 

monitoring, relying instead on fishermen’s own motivations for economic efficiency and 

ecological sustainability to reduce overall catch, fuel consumption and fishing effort. 

Summary 

A common theme is the importance of effective monitoring in achieving maximized retention 

policy and of monitoring limitations in determining which policies are possible. One benefit of a 

maximized retention policy is that it simplifies the monitoring goal to ensuring that regulated fish 

return to port, enabling greater use of cheaper and safer video tools and dockside biological

sampling. However, some at-sea observers will still be needed to collect biological information 

at high spatial and temporal resolution. Therefore, it is critical to clearly outline management and 

scientific goals in order to determine the most efficient and effective monitoring system. 

Notes: 

1. Norway Ministry of Fisheries & Coastal Affairs. 2009. Norwegian fisheries management, our approach 

on discard of fish. Fact sheet available at 

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FKD/Brosjyrer%20og%20veiledninger/fact_sheet_discard.pdf 

2. Government of Scotland. 2009. Sustainable Scottish fisheries and MSC certification. Policy paper 

available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/05/13115802/2 

3. Branch, T.A., K. Rutherford and R. Hilborn. Replacing trip limits with individual transferable quotas: 

implications for discarding. Marine Policy 30: 281-292. 

4. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Issuance of an exempted fishing permit for a maximized 

retention and monitoring program for the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery. Environmental assessment. 

5. Campbell, D. 2008. Community supported fishery project: charting a new course. Rural Cooperatives 

75: 4-41. 

The integration of commercial groundfish fisheries in British 

Columbia 

Barry Ackerman 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

 Canada 

The groundfish fishery in British Columbia (BC) is comprised of seven fleets: trawl, halibut, 

sablefish, outside rockfish, inside rockfish, dogfish and lingcod. Collectively the fleet comprises 

approximately 1,250 licences with 27 active vessels that engage in about 14,600 days at sea 

annually. The landed value, defined as the price paid to the commercial harvester, of the 

groundfish fisheries in 2007 was $133.5M. The groundfish fisheries are complex to say the least. 

The fleets collectively catch approximately 140 species with 61 of which are managed by a 

separate total allowable catch (TAC) delineated by species and area. Prior to 2006, the seven 

primary groundfish fisheries were licensed and managed separately. The fleets employ different 

gear and fishing methods to target individual groundfish species or groups of groundfish species. 

Unfortunately, none of the fleets were capable of restricting their harvest to target species, and the 

resulting harvest of non-directed catch raised significant conservation concerns. In 2006, based 

on an industry proposal, Fisheries and Oceans Canada approved a pilot program that attempted to 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 40
integrate the management of the commercial groundfish fisheries. The new arrangements include 

an inter-fleet reallocation system, full accountability of catch (retained and released) by 

individual harvesters, wider application of quota management and a comprehensive catch 

monitoring program. The two key elements of the monitoring program are the use of 100% at-sea 

monitoring (either by at-sea observer or by electronic monitoring) and 100% dockside 

monitoring. Harvesters are required to hail in and hail out for each fishing trip and must fill in an 

integrated groundfish logbook. 

The logbook requires the harvester to record by set the number of pieces of all fish retained and 

released. A 10% sample of the fishing events is randomly selected for image interpretation. 

Viewers identify the following: retrieval event, all catch by species including whether they were 

retained or released and size (legal or sublegal). The results of the image interpretation are 

compared with the catch recorded in the logbook and the level of agreement is examined. The 

random selection serves as an estimate of the total removals as well as an audit of the logbook 

data quality. In addition, a comparison between the offloaded catch by piece to the retained catch 

that is recorded in the logbook is also examined. Failure of a harvester to meet the standards 

established results in 100% viewing of the electronic monitoring data collected for that trip. The 

implementation of the integration program has resulted in improved catch data and reduced 

wastage of fish. During the three years of the pilot program, no TACs have been exceeded and in 

fact, there have been many TACs that have been under harvested. In addition, individually 

accountability of all catch has increased the incentive of harvesters to fish in a sustainable 

manner. 

Furthermore, the pilot program has established new institutional arrangements whereby 

representatives from each of the fleets co-operatively manage the commercial fishery with the 

Department. Industry commitment and participation in this process was a vital component of the 

success of the program. 

A shore-based monitoring program in Alaska: Catch monitoring 

and control plans 

Jennifer Watson* and Alan Kinsolving 

Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Regional Office, NOAA Fisheries Service 

Introduction

Limited access privilege programs increase the burden on fishery managers to provide highly 

defensible estimates of catch, especially when those estimates directly impact quota holders. 

NOAA Fisheries in the Alaska Region has dealt with these issues by clearly articulating goals for 

the management of quota-based fisheries and imposing new and more stringent monitoring as 

these programs have been developed. The catch weighing and monitoring system developed by 

NMFS for catcher/ processors and motherships is based on the vessel meeting a series of design 

criteria. Because inshore processors vary more in size, facilities and layout than at sea processing 

vessels, NOAA Fisheries in the Alaska Region developed a performance based catch monitoring 

system more appropriate for inshore processors. Under this system, each plant submits a Catch 

Monitoring and Control Plan (CMCP) to NMFS for approval. The plant is inspected by NMFS 

annually to ensure that the plant layout conforms to the elements of the plan. The goal of a 

CMCP is to ensure 1) all delivered catch can be effectively monitored by an observer; 2) that the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 41
 

observer can effectively conduct their sampling duties; and 3) that all catch is accurately sorted 

and weighed by species. CMCPs have been implemented as part of the American Fisheries Act 

pollock fishery, the Crab Rationalization crab fisheries, and the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish 

Pilot Program. 

Element of CMCPs: the Performance Standards

Performance standards detailed by each inshore processor include: 

1. Describes how all delivered catch is sorted and weighed by species. Details the space for 

sorting catch, the number of staff devoted to sorting and the rate that catch will flow through 

the sorting area. 

2. Designates an ‘‘observation area.’’ The observation area is the location where an individual 

may monitor the entire flow of fish during a delivery and ensure that no removals of catch 

have occurred between the delivery point and a location where all sorting has taken place and 

each species has been weighed. 

3. Designates a ‘‘delivery point.’’ The delivery point is the first location where fish removed 

from a catcher vessel can be sorted or diverted to more than one location. . 

4. Provides an observer work station that includes: a platform scale; an indoor working area, a 

table, and a secure and lockable cabinet. 

5. Designation of a plant liaison, responsible for orienting new observers to the plant, ensuring 

that the CMCP is implemented, and assisting in the resolution of concerns. 

6. Identify State of Alaska approved scales used to weigh catch and ensure these scales produce 

a printed record of each delivery. 

Benefits of CMCPs

The performance standards created for CMCPs have many advantages over design criteria 

regulations. The goals of ensuring all quota catch are sorted and weighed while allowing an 

observer to view the process may be met in many ways. Limiting processors to meeting the 

requirements with one method specified in regulations would not be cost effective and could 

create unnecessary inefficiencies in processing. Each shoreside processor is tasked with 

identifying how they will meet these goals given the complexity, size, and type of their facility. 

Because the performance standards set forth objectives and the processors are asked to design and 

describe the methods to meet those objectives, CMCPs allow the shore based facilities to 

innovate as new technologies develop. As a consequence, the process of developing CMCPs is 

complex. NOAA Fisheries and the plant management work closely together in an iterative 

process to make modifications to the plant. This approach fosters an open working relationship 

with NOAA fisheries and the fishing industry to solve challenges as they arise after a CMCP is 

approved and operating. 

Disadvantages of CMCPs

CMCPs are tools to be used by NOAA fisheries staff, enforcement observers or other agencies. 

As such, CMCPs are only effective if a human presence exists at the processor to ensure this 

monitoring tool is in effect. 

CMCPs were designed to monitor wholesale diversions of quota catch and the focus of the 

performance standards is to minimize the amount of bycatch that makes it past the sorters. 

CMCPs were not designed to monitor small quantities of rare species bycatch. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 42
 

Infractions against performance based standards may be more difficult to enforce and penalize 

than design criteria regulations because the exact violation may be more difficult to pinpoint in 

the regulations. Given the open working relationship created by the iterative process of 

approving and inspecting CMCPs, enforcement actions have been rare. 

Future for CMCPs

The catch of most target quota species is readily determined using observer and landings data 

because these species must be retained, landed, and sold for the vessel owner to receive earnings 

from that catch. However, prohibited species bycatch may not be retained for profit and its catch 

often limits the catch of economically valuable target species. The greater the potential to limit 

the target species catch, the greater the incentive to not have prohibited species catch identified 

and estimated. This is particularly applicable to shoreside processors. The factory areas of 

processing plants are large and complex. Preventing observers from seeing the limiting bycatch 

would not be difficult. In order for hard caps to be effective, CMCPs must be modified for 

individual fish tracking at shoreside processing plants. These modifications might include 

reducing the complexity of the sorting operations, providing secure storage of the limiting 

species, and providing the opportunity for all interested parties to observe the counting of the 

limiting species. 

Fully documented fishery – Using electronic monitoring to 

improve industry self-reported data 

Jørgen Dalskov 

National Institute for Aquatic Resources, Technical University of Denmark 

Introduction

Although the fisheries policy of the European Union is partly formulated in terms of Total 

Allowable Catches (TAC) it is widely recognized that there is a major discrepancy between the 

actual outtake of fish stocks and TAC reported landings. This discrepancy is caused by discards, 

high grading, illegal landings and area misreporting partly due to increasingly complicated and 

non-transparent regulations. In order to minimize this discrepancy and achieve higher accuracy in 

the data which forms the basis for fisheries advice, the Danish Government has proposed a new 

reporting and quota paradigm based on actual catches rather than reported landings. 

The foundation for this new paradigm is to give the individual vessel operators the responsibility 

to provide detailed reports of actual catches while verifying these with Electronic Monitoring 

(EM) in the form of cameras and logging of fishing operations (GPS, hydraulic sensors etc.). In 

order to ensure proper incentives for the operators, participation in EM programs is followed by 

increased quotas. Importantly, these increased fishing possibilities can be allotted without causing 

further strain on fish stocks due to the reduced discard and elimination of unreported outtake. 

Finally, an added benefit of the proposed paradigm is that by giving the industry a responsibility 

in terms of self-reporting they will experience a much tighter link between their operations and 

the stock assessment that forms the basis for quota allotment and other fisheries policies. Whether 

EM can be used in Danish fisheries is tested starting September 2008 and ending August 2009. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 43
 

Methods

A call for commercial fishing skippers and crews that voluntarily would like to participate in an 

EM trial was launched in the Danish Fishermen’s Association magazine. Eighteen vessel owners 

showed their interest. Six vessels were selected; four trawlers, one gill netter and one Danish 

seiner. In order to ensure proper incentives for the fishing skippers and crews participation in the 

EM trial they were given increased quotas by multiplying their vessel of cod quota with a factor 

adapted according to the ICES stock assessment on cod. 

Electronic Monitoring using CCTV cameras and GPS and other sensors has proven it usefulness 

(McElderry1

). In order from day one to have a setup that would work a contract with Archipelago 

Marine Research Ltd. and National Institute for Aquatic Resources, DTU Aqua was signed. 

Archipelago provided EM equipment together with technical and scientific assistance. DTU Aqua 

staff was trained in maintaining the EM equipment and the software to be used to analyze 

collected sensor and video data. 

EM equipment was installed on the six vessels during the first and second week in September of 

2008. The data collection will end ultimo July 2009 and the report to be finalized ultimo August 

2009. 

 

The skippers’ obligation for reporting was: Recording of haul by haul information in the official 

and an additional extended logbook, recording of catches of cod above and below minimum 

landing size and length measurements of all or maximum of 50 specimens of undersized cod per 

haul. Throughout the project meetings between the participating skipper and crews and DTU 

Aqua are held regularly for mutual exchange of information. 

Results/Discussion

Since the EM equipment has been installed until May 2009 the six vessels have in total been 

absent from port for 478 day and have conducted 1018 fishing operations. The EM equipment has 

been recording sensor data for more than 99% of the time at sea and the video data coverage from 

first fishing operation until arrival to port is almost census data. 

In general there has been a high agreement between recorded data and the data derived from 

analyzing the sensor and video data. When comparing the size grade distributions of landings of 

cod made by the trial vessels and all other Danish vessels fishing in the same area. Figure 1 is 

showing all vessels and figure 2 the trial vessels proportion per size grade of cod. It can be seen 

that trial vessels are landing significantly more size grade 4 and 5 than all other vessels. This is a 

clear indication that high grading takes place. A shift can be seen from January 2009 probably 

due to an increase of quota by 30%. This quota setting may be more in line with the available 

resources of cod. 

 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 44
 Figure 1. All other vessels Figure 2. Trial vessels

The skippers have been focusing more on the avoiding undersized cod than usual and carrying 

out more sustainable fishing as all catches of cod had to be deducted from their vessel quota. 

Furthermore, the skippers and crews have has changed views from being positive in using EM to 

towards colleagues promoting fully documented fishery as future setup for the Danish fishing 

industry, full documentation for the consumer, increased transparency of total catches and thereby 

an overall reduction in misreporting, illegal landings and reduction of discards. 

Jørgen Dalskov 

National Institute for Aquatic Resources 

Technical University of Denmark, Denmark 

 

 

Notes: 

1. McElderry, H. 2008. At-Sea Observing Using Video-Based Electronic Monitoring. Report prepared for 

the Electronic Monitoring Workshop held by The North Pacific Fishery Management Council, The 

National Marine Fisheries Service and The North Pacific Research Board, July 2008.

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 45
Monitoring transhipments of tuna using observers 

 Robert Trumble1 Graeme Parkes2

MRAG Americas1, MRAG Ltd2

 

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) expressed grave 

concern about the existence of organised tuna laundering operations that were handling a 

significant volume of catch by illegal, unreported and unregistered (IUU) fishing and 

transhipping under the names of legitimate, licensed fishing and carrier vessels. A suite of 

recommendations consistent with FAO measures to combat IUU were introduced between 2002 

and 2006 including Recommendation 06-11 establishing a set of control measures which included 

monitoring transhipments from large scale tuna longline vessels (LSTLVs) to carrier vessels by 

trained observers. The subsequent ICCAT Regional Observer Programme (ROP) was 

implemented in May 2007 by a consortium comprising of MRAG and Capricorn Fisheries 

Monitoring (CapFish). 

Observer candidates are recruited on the basis of their experience of fisheries control and 

monitoring and only those approved by ICCAT are required to complete a training programme 

endorsed by ICCAT. Observers are deployed onboard carrier vessels following an official 

request and notification process. During each deployment their responsibilities are to monitor 

each transhipment, verify the LSTLV identity, the location, amounts and species transhipped. 

Outputs of each deployment are reported to the ICCAT Secretariat. Other measures in place 

include a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the consortium and carrier vessel 

operators, which supports the aims of the ROP as laid out in the Recommendation. Since May 

2007 there have been 58 deployment requests. 

Other RFMOs have implemented similar observer programmes, which are based on the ICCAT 

model. These are the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the Indian Ocean 

Tuna Commission (IOTC) and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna 

(CCSBT). IOTC and IATTC have had operational ROPs since the beginning of 2009, with IOTC 

having 52 deployment requests and IATTC having 15. CCSBT utilises the other ROPs to obtain 

data relating to southern bluefin tuna. ICCAT and IOTC ROPs are also managed by the 

consortium of MRAG Ltd. and CapFish, whilst the IATTC ROP is managed by MRAG 

Americas. 

Carrier vessels often cross RFMO boundaries to conduct transhipments in adjoining RFMO 

Convention Areas. As such, in June 2009 ICCAT and IOTC signed an MoU which stated that ‘for 

continuity purposes and to minimize costs, the same Observer actively deployed on a particular 

carrier vessel in one area may stay on the vessel and automatically maintain monitoring of the 

carrier vessel in the new area.’ The co-ordination between MRAG Ltd., CapFish and MRAG 

Americas has enabled such an agreement to be feasible. The level of cooperation and systems 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 46
developed by the observer providers has maintained a high standard of observer performance 

whilst allowing successful adaptation to the different requirements of individual RFMOs. 

This capacity for a standardised approach with sufficient flexibility to reflect specific demands of 

each RFMO provides a practical foundation upon which to develop transhipment observer 

programmes further1

. 

Notes: 

1. Submitted by the MRAG and Capfish Private Consortium. 

Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panellists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Comment/Question 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

My question relates to the dockside 

monitoring work. There were several 

programs there, from Namibia to the 

Alaskan program, with basically 100% 

dockside monitoring required, with some 

pre-landing notification. I was wondering 

what the time frame is for a pre-landing 

notification, and how that is handled if that 

time-frame cannot be met? Is there a waiver 

system? 

Response 

Jennifer Watson 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

In our system we have observers stationed at 

the processing facilities, so the observers are 

informed of the radio schedule and they're 

onsite and the observers are informed, I 

believe, an hour before the offload occurs. 

Response 

Barry Ackerman 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada

In Canada it's a requirement for fishers to 

hail in at least 24 hours before they come in, 

but realistically what does occur from time 

to time is that they'll give as much as four, 

five, six hours notice. We, as in Alaska, 

have observers that are situated in the 

landing locations and the landing locations 

are restricted, so if a vessel or the observers 

are available they'll be there to meet the 

boat. If not, they may have to wait 24 hours 

for the observer to get there and they can't 

start their offloads until the observer is 

present to observe the offload. 

Comment/Question 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I was just particularly interested in Namibia 

as well, because they were restricted to 

landing in two ports, but they had to provide 

some advance notification to the ministry if 

they wanted to offload in a different port. 

Response 

Elwin Kruger 

Fisheries Observer Agency 

Namibia 

Namibia is basically the same as in Canada. 

They have to give notice 24 hours in 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 47
 

advance, but I think sometimes even up to 

four or five hours is also acceptable. And 

they cannot also start offloading before an 

inspector is on the site. 

Comment/Question 

Alpha A. Bangura 

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources 

Sierra Leone 

It's a follow-up to the question to the 

Namibian presenter. You've mentioned that 

fish are landed in only two areas. In African 

Fisheries, artesanal fisheries play a large 

role. Is it that both industrial and artesanal 

fisheries can land fish at only two places? 

Response 

Elwin Kruger 

Fisheries Observer Agency 

Namibia 

Thank you for the question. Basically in 

Namibia there are no artesanal fisheries in 

places – only commercial fisheries.

Comment/Question 

Paul MacGregor 

At-Sea Processors Association 

USA 

We conduct the Pollock Cooperative Fishing 

Operations in the Bering Sea, and this is for 

Mr. Ackerman. I'd be very interested in 

knowing if you've had occasion to compare 

the by-catch profiles of vessels that operate 

under electronic monitoring on the one hand 

versus vessels having an observer on board, 

same vessel type, same fishery?

Response 

Barry Ackerman 

Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada

For our trawl fishery it's 100% observer 

coverage, so it's a mute point. For our hook 

and line fisheries there have been some 

studies that have been incorporated. What it 

initially led us to was the realization that we 

needed 100% at-sea monitoring on that 

fishery itself. In terms of the details about 

the difference between EM and the at-sea 

coverage, I would defer that to my friends at 

Archipelago at this stage of the game. They 

probably have more pertinent information 

right off the tops of their heads. 

Comment/Question 

Paul MacGregor 

At-Sea Processors Association 

USA 

Well as a follow-up then, have you ever had 

occasion to try electronic monitoring on a 

trawl vessel?

Response 

Barry Ackerman 

Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada

Not at the same time as an observer. No, we 

have not gotten to that stage yet. 

Comment/Question 

Greg Croft 

East Coast Observer Program 

Canada 

With 100% dockside monitoring and 100% 

at-sea, either observer or electronic might be 

ideal. What does it cost? 

Response 

Barry Ackerman

Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada

It's not cheap, by any stretch of the 

imagination. The at-sea observer cost is 

over $500.00 a day. The dockside, or the 

EM monitoring is probably about half that 

cost, so there's a significant savings going 

into the EM program. The buy-in for the atsea program for the trawl fishery in 

particular is that the industry itself is very 

clear and has stated that without the at-sea 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 48
 

program they couldn't defend their fishery. 

They are fully supportive of that. Also, our 

programs are cost-recovered from the 

industry to the extent that about two-thirds 

are paid by the fisherman themselves and 

one third is paid by the government at this 

stage.

Response 

Bob Trumble 

MRAG Americas 

USA

I've had a chance to talk to a couple of folks 

about the BC system, and they told me that 

in the absence of this integrated program, 

some of the fisheries probably wouldn't be 

occurring because in the prior open-access 

fishery, faced with this cost recovery 

program, there were too many fisherman – 

and nobody was making enough money to 

pay for it. 

So with the cost recovery they basically 

would have gotten put out of business. So 

by consolidating and generating some 

profits to pay for the cost recovery, they 

ended up with a viable fishery even though 

they're paying for these additional costs 

where they might otherwise not have had a 

viable fishery at all. 

Comment 

Steve Kennelly 

NSW Department of Primary Industries 

Australia 

Actually an additional point was made in 

that fishery, where the results from the 

electronic monitoring gave industry enough 

information to be able to improve their 

TACs eventually. 

Comment/Question 

Vicki Cornish

Ocean Conservancy 

USA 

My question is for Craig regarding the New 

Zealand fishery, where you were monitoring 

Hector's dolphins in Maui's dolphin bycatch. You know we're always looking for 

ways to run these observer programs more 

efficiently and cost is a huge factor. And I 

was just intrigued by the cost savings that 

you were able to achieve through the change 

from your traditional observer method to the 

new method. But I really didn't get a sense 

of what caused those cost reductions. Was it 

the logistics of how you placed observers, 

the advance notice that was required to 

fishermen? Could you just elaborate on 

that? That's a pretty significant change in 

coverage, from 0.5% to 30%, with – what 

did you say? – a 20% reduction in cost. It’s 

just very intriguing how you did that. 

Response 

Craig Loveridge 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand 

I was talking to my manager of the program 

and he was saying the main cost savings 

were in logistical features. When you send a 

single observer to a port you have to provide 

them with accommodation, possibly a car, 

so they can meet vessels and go from place 

to place to meet vessels, and there are also 

issues with transport around. When you've 

sent a group of observers to a single port 

you can consolidate a lot of these costs, so 

you only need one source of transport. As 

mentioned, we had an observer in port, a 

senior observer who was there specifically 

to cater for any needs that they had so that 

they could pick them up if they needed and 

transfer them to other places. 

The other issue was that there was no 

changeover. In the traditional model, 

because an observer would be bouncing 

from vessel to vessel they may come in with 

a vessel on a Tuesday and want to go to the 

next vessel, but if that vessel left on a 

Monday, they've got to wait around for a 

couple of days in port until they can catch 

up with the vessel again. When you've got 

observers assigned to specific vessels, 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 49
 

whenever the vessel went fishing, the 

observers went with it. So there was a lot 

less down-time and there was a lot less time 

where observers were onshore waiting for 

trips to go. And, also, we did have a period 

of reasonable weather as well, so there were 

periods in which we got consistent coverage 

for long periods of time. 

Comment/Question 

Michele Kuruc 

Food and Agricultural Organization 

Italy 

I want to first just compliment the panel, the 

whole series of presentations was extremely 

interesting. 

What I'd like to contribute really is a point 

of information that was prompted by Bob 

Trumble's presentation on trans-shipment. I 

just wanted to have the audience know that 

the FAO is also working on a new tool to 

combat IUU fishing, and Bob mentioned 

that the tuna RFMOs are working on a 

global registry of vessels. 

One of the things that the FAO is working 

on is a comprehensive global record of 

fishing vessels, refrigerated transport vessels 

and supply vessels in an attempt to bring 

together in a single place in a single 

database, basically a one-stop shop of 

information that includes basic vessel 

identification information as well as lots of 

other information about vessel movements, 

detention records, all sorts of valuable 

information that observers in particular 

might find very interesting to consult prior 

to embarking on a vessel. 

It's a long-term project, as you can imagine, 

since it's on a global scale, and the countries 

of the world also need to certainly approve 

it, but it is well underway. Thank you. 

Comment/Question 

Ebol Rojas 

Association for Professional Observers 

Mexico 

Bob, Tuna trans-shipment observer 

programs are an excellent example on how 

standardization works - standardizing the 

data forms, trans-shipment declaration, and 

other relevant documents. There is an 

opportunity for an international fisheries 

observer certification across all the tuna 

RFMOs – I mean that, since the deployment 

is working across the operational 

organizations like ICCAT, IOTC, IATDC, 

western Southern Pacific Fisheries 

Management Area, is there opportunity for 

unification of the certification, so one 

observer will be able to deploy in any area 

of the RFMO? 

Response 

Bob Trumble

MRAG Americas 

USA 

We're not certifying the observers as such 

but we are training them all to the same 

standards and using the same protocols for 

observing. So in essence it's pretty 

comparable to having a certification across 

programs – just one of the advantages of 

having a consortium using the same 

procedures. But certainly there are some 

reasons for looking at a program that would 

certify observers so that observers could 

more easily go from program to program. 

We're looking at a single program here that 

just happens to cover a bunch of regions, but 

if observers wanted to move to other kinds 

of programs, certification might make that 

easier. Could be difficult to get everybody 

to agree, however, on exactly what should 

go into it. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 50
 

Comment/Question 

Kim Dietrich

Consultant 

USA 

 

My question is mostly to Barry. I know in 

the sea bird world there's been a lot of talk 

about – and also this is kind of instigated 

from the data extrapolation workshop 

yesterday – a lot of talk about the percentage 

of the EM data that's verified for some of the 

rare event species. I think the general 

thought is that 10% is not enough. Are you 

folks addressing any questions of rare event 

species that you might have? I'm sure there 

are some fish that fall into that category as 

well.

Response 

Barry Ackerman 

Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada 

That is one area where there are some 

shortfalls within the program. What we are 

continuing to do is to work with the industry 

to see if we can address some of those 

concerns. With regards to seabirds in 

particular, it's mandated by license that they 

have torey lines and all the stuff that goes 

along with that as part of their license 

conditions. Those are strictly enforced. But 

you are right, that is one of the areas that 

needs to be addressed and we will and are 

continuing to work with our industry people 

to see if we can come up with some 

mechanisms that make it worthwhile for 

them – as regards cost and accurate 

information. 

Response 

Bob Trumble 

MRAG Americas 

USA 

I think that you have a real super-advantage 

here. At least you have the data. So if you 

wanted to go back and do a special program, 

say see how much data would you need to 

evaluate to find these rare events 50% of the 

time and you could double it. At least you 

could go back and look at a lot of data as a 

pilot program, come up with those kinds of 

statistics or procedures, and then you could 

simply implement it. But it's just difficult to 

come up with the research to specifically lay 

that out and do it. 

Comment/Question 

Sidi Ndaw 

Office of Maritime Fish 

Senegal 

You said you expect to launch an observer 

program in Cameroon next year. What kind 

of program do you want, do you expect? 

Just how many observers? I ask because 

this year you attended a workshop in 

Senegal about an observer program. Do you 

think it will help you for your program? 

Thank you. 

Response 

Pierre Meke

Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Animal 

Industries 

Cameroon 

The kind of observer program that we want 

to launch in Cameroon is a full-coverage 

program, and I show you the figures here: 

we are losing almost 30 billion CFA per 

year because of IUU fishing. And I show 

you also what we are going to lose in terms 

of launching an observer program is just 

one-tenth of that value. So if we invest the 

money to launch a full coverage observer 

program, I think we will have a lot of 

benefits on that program. So Senegal, of 

course, it was good training. I continue to 

say thanks to NOAA to enable me to

participate in that training, and we also have 

a workshop scheduled this year in Cameroon 

with NOAA. We expect that out of that 

training we'll be able to harmonize 

procedures on data collection, because it's 

not good if Cameroon has a special program 

and that data cannot be exchanged or be 

useful to another country. So I think that 

from our programs in Africa and even all 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 51
 

around the world, if you harmonize data and 

procedures and analysis, then there will be 

benefit to everybody. Thank you.

Comment/Question 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

I also want to compliment the speakers on 

excellent presentations. A few things to 

throw into the pot here – Jake, I wanted to 

just add one more benefit to your case for 

maximized retention fisheries. I think 

operating in that kind of context creates a 

real motivation on the part of industry to be 

looking for more selective fishing because 

there is a cost associated with carrying fish 

that they're not interested in. 

The point I really wanted to address was 

kind of a connection between Jennifer and 

Barry where I heard two different kinds of 

examples where there's more of an impetus 

put on the part of industry to try to solve the 

problems through catch monitoring, the 

agency putting standards forward and 

industry coming back with some ideas 

around how to achieve that. And I think that 

the leadership that we've seen with the 

industry in BC shows how well that model 

can really work. I'm just wondering if you 

guys see the same sort of parallel that I 

noticed there. But I think there's a word of 

caution about the level of overproscriptiveness that the agencies need to 

sort of stay away from and allow that 

leadership. And I think it kind of comes 

towards the type of bottoms-up approach 

that Jørgen talks about with the Danish 

fishery. Thank you. 

Response 

Jennifer Watson 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I agree. No, I think some of the advantages 

are working with industry and allowing that 

– giving them a goal of what we need and 

then them being able to come forward and 

tell us how they would possibly achieve that 

goal, give us some buy-in to the program, 

and then they will be a lot more likely to 

comply with something they develop 

themselves.

Response 

Jørgen Dalskov 

National Institute for Aquatic Resources 

Denmark 

We have in Europe seen, at least in the 

European Union 2000 provisions, that that 

particular fisheries regulation hasn't worked. 

I think we have used a stick for 25 years or 

27 years and it didn't work. Now to our 

mind we think that we should go a new 

approach, where the fisherman has to show 

exactly what they are doing, but again they 

can have a carrot instead of the stick. So to 

my mind it's extremely important that we 

cooperate very closely with industry, 

otherwise it doesn't work. 

Comment/Question 

Teresa Turk 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

I'll just ask my first question to Barry: I 

noted in your presentation that for the long 

line vessels you only have electronic 

monitoring. And then that electronic 

monitoring is only sampled at the 10% level. 

Have you done a lot of studies that justify 

your reduction to 10%, and have you seen 

anything like a protected species, marine 

mammal interactions with the gear that have 

been missed by subsampling only 10% of 

the catch?

Response 

Barry Ackerman 

Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada 

No. I guess when we started out with the 

program, we were looking at 100% video 

monitoring, and the cost of that was 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 52
 

phenomenal. And what we had to realize is 

that by putting the incentive back on the 

individual fishermen for being properly 

accounting for his fish in his log books at a 

10% and a random basis that we can 

provide, what we feel is that we are getting 

defensible numbers in terms of what is being 

seen on the ground. 

In terms of the interactions with marine 

mammals, I would defer this to Andrew 

Fedoruk, who's going to be talking about 

this a little bit later on in his discussion of 

the system itself. But just off the top of my 

head I would say there's very little 

interaction. 

Comment/Question 

Janell Majewski 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

I'm from the West Coast, and my question is 

for Barry. You said that the observer data 

and the vessel logbook data and the fish 

ticket data are all combined. I'm wondering 

how long it takes you to get that back to the 

fleet so they can deal with their monitoring?

Response 

Barry Ackerman 

Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada 

For the trawl program, from the time of the 

landing and the observer leaves the vessel to 

the time that the vessel receives a report 

card, or what we call a quota status report, is 

48 hours. 

Comment/Question 

Brian Belay

MRAG Americas 

USA 

Craig mentioned the change in the selection 

process for your vessels. Could you go into 

a little more detail and what your original 

selection process was, and then what you 

changed it to? Was it random, systematic? 

How did you select those vessels the second 

year around when you selected the vessels 

ahead of time that you assigned the 

observers to? Were there statistical changes 

that you had to account for that change in 

selection?

Response 

Craig Loveridge 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand 

The programs only happened once, last 

summer, so basically there were two 

methods of concern that were of particular 

interest. They were inshore trawl vessels 

and inshore seine net vessels. Our fisheries 

have very good records, so we know which 

vessels are using which methods. We also 

know a lot about our vessels in terms of 

their length, the maximum number of crew 

that they have on board, and the size of the 

engine in the vessel. 

So we knew the areas we were interested in, 

that is, the areas that the Hector's and Maui’s 

populations are found in. So we went 

through our database of commercial catch to 

work out which vessels had reported fishing 

in those areas using those methods. That 

gave us a list of – and I can't remember the 

actual numbers - but it probably gave us a 

list of 300 or 400 vessels. We then worked 

out which of those vessels were active 

during the summer, which was going to be 

the period we were interested in doing these 

observations, so that knocked the list down. 

And then we also used the Maritime Safety 

Authority to find out how much room they 

had on board to see whether they could 

comfortably carry observers, and that 

knocked it down a little bit more to a list of 

vessels that we felt could carry an observer 

over the summer and would be fishing in the 

areas where they may see Hector's and 

Maui's dolphins, and would be using either 

seine netting or trawling, which were the 

two methods we were interested in. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 53
 

Then it was a process of sending letters. 

Every vessel that was on the initial list was 

sent a letter to inform them that these 

observations were going to be carried out 

this summer and that they may be issued 

with a placement notice, and then after that 

it was down to the hard work of the people 

in the observer centers, this is mainly Chris 

Ramp, who spent a lot of time on the phone 

contacting individual vessel owners and 

finding out a bit more about the vessels if 

we didn't know already that they were a 

vessel that could take an observer. And then 

by that time we'd got down to about 50 or 60 

prime vessels and he basically selected 50 of 

those and told us where to send the 

emplacement notices. 

But he did spend a lot of time calling them 

up individually to actually talk to them to 

see whether they could take an observer, but 

there were initial letters, so they were aware 

that placement notices were coming. 

Comment/Question 

Graeme Parkes 

MRAG Ltd. 

UK 

 

I have a question to Elwin Kruger regarding 

the Namibian observer program. If I 

understood correctly, you mentioned that the 

observers countersigned the logbooks, and I 

was interested to understand better the 

capacity in which they're signing the 

logbooks, because this has been raised as an 

issue in some of the programs that we run. 

For example, what happens if the observer 

signs something that subsequently proves to 

be inaccurate or wrong or indeed a situation 

arises during an observation where the 

observer feels unable to sign, and so there's 

a potential impasse and difficult situation?

Response 

Elwin Kruger 

Fisheries Observer Agency 

Namibia

Basically the observer will only sign the 

logbook if he agrees that the information is 

recorded accordingly, and if he does not 

agree he simply does not sign and he will 

then complete a violation report, which will 

be handed over to authorities to investigate. 

Comment/Question 

Mike Markovina

Moving Sushi Marine Resource Expedition 

South Africa 

A lot of the observations we made on our 

trip was transshipment of fish from 

industrial trawlers via artesanal vessels onto 

the shore at multiple landing spots, and that 

fish is always removed into international 

markets relatively quickly. In your 

professional opinions and experience, how 

do you think we can relate the sort of 

success stories of what you have done back 

to the developing world? Can we apply the 

monitoring observation program within 

artesanal fisheries, which play such a 

fundamental role in Africa? 

The second point to that question is about 

the Cameroon observer program and how 

dependent would that be on the fees that you 

would collect from certain vessels?

Response 

Pierre Meke 

Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Animal 

Industries 

Cameroon 

Yes. To get the funds to run the observer 

program in Cameroon the law states that 

every fisherman is to contribute to fishery 

management and should be able to pay for 

an observer to embark to pay for a vessel 

embark on board. So we expect that all the 

fishermen will contribute and pay for the 

programs of the observers. The salaries are 

basically paid by the government and the 

fishers’ contributions add to the government 

money to help the observers to be more 

efficient in data collection. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 54
 

Moderator 

Steve Kennelly 

NSW Department of Primary Industries 

Australia

And the first part of the question about 

rolling out some of the work that's been 

done in other fisheries into artisanal fishery 

work. Did anyone want to talk to that?

Response 

Jacob Kritzer 

Environmental Defense Fund 

USA 

I have a slightly different case, but similar. 

A colleague of mine is doing a project in 

Belize with the fishermen and fishery 

managers there, and it's not a matter of 

factory vessels offloading onto artisanal 

vessels, it's really the artisanal vessels 

themselves who catch the fish and where 

they land them. They're supposed to go 

through cooperatives but more and more 

they are going straight to resorts and hotels, 

and a lot of information is lost and therefore 

it becomes very difficult to assess and 

manage the stocks. They haven't come up 

with an answer yet. One thing we're 

thinking about, though, is targeting the 

buyers, and trying to collect data through 

those who are buying things like lobster and 

conch. If that doesn't work, we may try 

targeting the next level of consumers and 

trying to use different marketing methods to 

apply market pressure to ensure that they go 

through the channels that get that data that's 

being lost. 

Moderator 

Steve Kennelly 

NSW Department of Primary Industries 

Australia 

We tried to pull a session together at the 

previous conference two years ago on 

rolling out observer programs into artisanal 

fisheries, but we only got a few interested 

papers. But there are those few abstracts 

and some papers about examples of that sort 

of rollout that exists in certain parts of the 

world. I'm not sure if anyone here, possibly 

not on this panel, but I'm not sure if anyone 

in the audience is familiar with that sort of 

work? If so, you might be able to catch 

Mike later on and talk to him about it. But I 

do recall seeing some abstracts about that 

sort of work going on in quite challenging 

environments. And there have been 

successes in that.

Comment/Question 

Lisa Borges 

European Commission 

Belgium 

My question is for Jørgen. I would refrain 

myself from discussing the benefits of the 

stick and carrot policy on the European 

Commission Common fisheries policy. My 

question is actually related to the graph you 

showed. You said that you compared the 

data from EM to the observer's data and you 

have data from 2008 and 2009. Now in 

2009 there was a prohibition of discarding 

legally-sized fish, and I was wondering if 

your observer program has noticed a change 

in the discarding behavior of the fishermen? 

 

Response 

Jørgen Dalskov 

National Institute for Aquatic Resources 

Denmark

Discarding fish above the minimum landing 

size has been banned in the Danish 

regulations for the last ten years, I think. So 

I know it's illegal to discard fish above the 

minimum landing size, but even though, 

when there's such a tight restriction, they do 

it anyway, and also do it when observers are 

on board but not in the same extent as no 

observers on board. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 55
 

Comment/Question 

Georg Hinteregger 

NMFS Observer 

USA 

Those of you who know me know I'm 

particularly interested in service delivery 

model issues, and I was wondering if Barry 

could tell me how it works over there. 

British Columbia is really amazing – to see 

how the industry has taken the lead in 

getting all this accomplished, and I'm 

wondering about the technical details - like 

does the industry have the option to contract 

with other providers, other than 

Archipelago, for this service? Is this 

contemplated for the future and do you see 

issues if more than one provider is certified 

to provide these services?

Response 

Barry Ackerman 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada 

First of all with regards to our provision of 

the at-sea program, we rely on a single 

service provider to provide that service to 

the department and to the industry. That is 

awarded out through a contract through a 

regular request for proposals, a bidding 

process (normally on a three- to five-year 

time period), but we do only have one 

service provider. We made that decision 

probably 20 years ago in going to that 

model, rather than the multiservice provider 

model. We felt there were more benefits to 

it, and the quality and control of the data and 

information coming in was far better under 

the single service provider. 

For the dockside monitoring elements of the 

fishery, each fishery individually contracts 

out for that service. We are fortunate that 

we have one company that provides that 

service for all the ground fish fisheries and 

that's Archipelago, so we really have 

benefitted from the knowledge and the 

expertise that we've developed over the 

years in coming up with a program that 

works in a very cost-efficient manner for the 

industry itself. But for all intents and 

purposes it is a single-service provider by 

contract through tendering process. 

Comment/Question 

Jenna Christiansen 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Barry, you had mentioned that there were 

about 280 vessels working currently in your 

fisheries, and I was curious, how many did 

you have prior to these ITQs and the 100% 

dockside and at-sea monitoring programs?

Response 

Barry Ackerman 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada 

Prior to our integration program there were 

approximately 2,000 vessels, and there has 

been consolidation. Our hook and line 

fisheries that weren't involved in ITQ 

processes had an unlimited number of 

licenses. So it was sort of the last open 

fishery that was available in Canada, in 

contrast with our licensing scheme in there. 

But there were about 2,000 active vessels 

before integration, and now we're down to 

about 270 to 300 vessels – somewhere in 

that range. So there has been significant 

rationalization of the fleets and 

concentration of the vessels, too, in a 

positive manner. While there has been some 

job losses, what we're finding is that the jobs 

remaining in the fishery are much better jobs 

and long-term jobs, rather than just a single 

week here or two weeks there. It's now full 

year-round employment. 

Comment/Question 

Jenna Christiansen 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

With regard to your monitoring funding – 

has it always been two-thirds industry, one 

third government? Did it start off that way 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 56
 

or did you have full government funding 

initially?

Response 

Barry Ackerman 

Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada 

No, we started off with the requirement for 

cost recovery. Much to the chagrin of the 

industry, and a very large letter writing 

campaign, and all kinds of stuff that went 

on, what we ended up doing is providing the 

offset to cover the administrative costs of 

the program. The cost of actually putting 

the observers on the boats or the cost of the 

actual deployment of the EM equipment on 

board the vessels is borne by the industry. 

It's the administrative costs of the program 

that the department picks up at this stage of 

the game, and hopefully that'll continue – at 

least that's the industry's intention anyway, 

but with government spending the way it is, 

who knows? 

Comment/Question 

Jennifer Lengares 

A.I.S. Inc. 

USA 

My question is actually directed towards 

Jake regarding maximum retention. In a 

program like that, is there are allowances for 

fish that are caught that are alive and that 

can be released alive at sea, and if so is there 

a way to monitor those allowances to ensure 

that the fishermen are only throwing live 

fish overboard and if it's already caught dead 

that they have to bring it in - is there's any 

kind of program like that in place for that 

type of idea.

Response 

Jacob Kritzer 

Environmental Defense Fund 

USA 

That's a really good question. The slide I 

glossed over for fear of getting in trouble 

with my time limit went into that a bit, 

which is one of the things that motivated the 

change in my title from benefits to 

implications – exactly that sort of problem. 

If you require that everything that's caught is 

to be kept, you could actually be taking out 

of the water some animals that would have 

survived and reproduced. So I think it's 

something that needs to be looked at. I think 

it's going to be unique to each fishery, and 

therefore I don't think there's a simple and 

straightforward answer to the second part of 

your question, which is "can it be done and 

how can it be done?" I think that's really 

going to depend on what the gear is, how 

much time the animal has spent caught in 

the gear, whether it's a net or hook or a gill 

net and the biology of the beast. You know, 

certain species of fish, skates, for example, 

are often rumored, at least, to have fairly 

high post-release survivorship; a small 

pelagic that's been packed in a net for a few 

hours may not. So it's really going to be 

case-specific. Obviously, protected species 

are often going to go right over the side. It's 

those kinds of issues that have shifted the 

focus of us looking at these questions from 

full retention, as a kind of a very black-andwhite approach, to maximized retention, to 

keeping things that are basically being 

removed from the population one way or the 

other, whether they're coming to shore or 

not. But it's a really good point, and we're 

just starting to look at this question. The 

more I look at it the more I realize how 

complex it is. It's not straightforward by a 

long shot. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 57
 

Concluding Session Statement 

Steve Kennelly 

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries 

 Australia

I just want to wrap up a few things about what I think we got out of this session. A broad 

diversity of countries, observer programs, methods and issues were canvassed here in the last two 

hours, and I found it fascinating to hear about the fisheries and the sophistication of the observer 

programs and monitoring programs that are being implemented in Africa by those two gentlemen. 

We heard about the very strong legislative basis of Namibia's fisheries management, and I didn't 

realize how sophisticated that work is, with 100% coverage in port monitoring (which is easy 

when you've only got two ports, but you know, you're still doing it), and VMS systems and so on. 

I didn't know Cameroon meant "shrimp", but also the strength and weaknesses of the observer 

program in Cameroon were very significant lessons for us all. It's very interesting to learn about 

the objective way they went about assessing various models and ways of doing observer work 

and surveillance work before going and launching into a big program, and it has put them in a 

very good position. 

We also learned how one can implement a very good observer program in small-scale fisheries in 

New Zealand to look at issues to do with dolphin by-catch. We also heard about how a maximum 

retention management system can actually ease the burden on observers in certain circumstances, 

but we also heard about the many pros and cons of that model. 

We heard a lot about how Canada brought in a program to account for all mortalities in a very 

multispecies, multi-method group of fisheries, which is quite a challenge. And we also heard 

about the CMCP in Alaska, and how it can work cooperatively on the factory floor and manage to 

make improvements in the way people operate in the fishery and also the observer data collected. 

And we also learned that most of the observers in that program were bachelors!! 

We then heard about an excellent example of an empirical assessment of the value of electronic 

monitoring systems in Denmark which demonstrated the importance of using EMs as a tool by 

which industry can improve their position in arguing for increased TACs by being able to prove 

their data better. 

And then we learned about a truly global and truly international attempt at bringing together an 

observer type program across the planet, which I think eventually that's going to be a precursor to 

a pretty massive system. So I want to thank our panellists and the audience for a very enjoyable 

and enlightening two hours. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 58
Panel Session 2: 

How can fishery monitoring information be standardized and 

how can data quality be improved? 

Moderator: Charles Gray, New South Whales Department of Primary Industries, Australia 

Speakers 

Larry Beerkircher –USA 

Standardized data collection formats: How important are they? 

Bjorn Stockhausen – Italy 

The data collection regulation of the European Commission. 

Kyle Baker – USA 

The development of national standards for protected species observers in the U.S. 

Michelle Passerotti –USA 

Challenges to data standardization between on-board and alternative platform observation of small 

vessels. 

Bob Stanley –Australia 

Introducing e- Monitoring into the mix of AFMAs monitoring options: Insights, benefits and costs. 

Oscar Guzman –Chile 

Computer science technology applied to data collection and data management. 

Matthew Grinnell –Canada 

Evaluating the reliability of at-sea observer release estimates in British Columbia groundfish trawl 

fisheries. 

Introduction to the session 

The types and uses of data collected from fishery monitoring and observer programs are 

exhaustive. Typically data collected range from the species compositions, lengths and quantities 

of retained and discarded catches, to biological and tissue samples as well as information 

concerning fishing gear and activity. As costs of data collection increase, there is significant 

pressure to collect more and more data in each program as well as develop systems that allow for 

greater data quality and efficiency. 

It is important within any monitoring and observer program that data are collected in a systematic 

and standardized manner. There is much debate as to whether data collections and systems should 

be standardized across different fishery programs. This would allow far greater and efficient 

comparisons of data among programs, allowing for greater meta-analyses at scales greater than 

within each individual program. However, data standardization at such a scale comes at a cost. 

There have been significant advancements in fishery data collection systems in recent years, 

particularly those utilizing electronic capture and transcription of data. These systems can offer 

more efficient and safer means of collecting data as well as faster times to access and use the data

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 59
 

for fishery management decisions. There is a continuing need for refining data systems across all 

types of fishery programs. 

In this session we are provided with a critique of advancements and challenges concerning data 

quality and standardization. The benefits and costs of standardizing data collection across 

programs are debated. We are given overviews of the data collection requirements and standards 

in the fishery monitoring programs of the European Union and the USA protected species 

observer program as well as the challenges of standardizing data collection from alternate 

platforms in small-boat observer programs. We are also provided with demonstrations of the 

utility of electronic advancements in on-board data collection systems and the need for calibration 

and training in data collection protocols in fishery monitoring and observer programs. 

Standardized data collection formats: How important are they 

Lawrence R. Beerkircher 

NOAA Fisheries Service, Pelagic Observer Program, USA 

Introduction

It has become a common theme in the fisheries observer community that national and even 

international standardized formats (data forms, data units, coding systems, etc.) for observer 

programs are sorely needed. Proponents of standardization cite benefits such as increased utility 

to a larger number of data end users, decreased costs when training observers who have 

previously worked for another observer program, and increased mobility of observers between 

programs. While standardized formats certainly should be developed for use by start-up observer 

programs, the need to convert existing programs to standardized criteria is less of a settled 

argument. 

Methods

I closely examined three supposed benefits and ideas behind standardization and deconstructed in 

detail the implications of implementing standardized schemes. I wanted to consider if the 

benefits were real, or if they were real, were they offset by negatives? The three suppositions 

were (1) standardization of codes and forms allows easy movement by observers from one 

program to another, which therefore decreases training costs and increases observer performance, 

(2) standardized data and coding systems facilitates easy use of the data by multiple end users, 

and (3) standardization is a priority for fisheries managers. In addition to these examinations, I 

also explored the idea of who the “customers” were for observer data, and if which of those 

customers would be best served by standardization. 

Results/Discussion

 The first supposition assumes that standardization will allow an observer, trained in one program, 

to easily move to another program, without requiring a full training, thus saving time and money. 

Unfortunately, since observer programs are as diverse as the fisheries they observe, it is unlikely 

that standardization would have large benefits, except for possibly certain “core” training 

elements such as safety. Training on the collection of gear characteristic data, species 

identification, and specialized sampling (e.g. the removal of otoliths, collection of biopsies) 

which takes the most time in US observer programs, would not overlap in most occasions. In 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 60
order to realize the supposed cost benefit of standardization, programs would have to train 

observers on gear and species that the program never sees, thus extending the time taken during 

training and eating up the savings. Even the standardization of safety training will not result in 

the full potential of cost savings unless the training is implemented in a mandatory, top-down 

standard for use when observers transfer in. Finally, the preliminary results of the Observer 

Professionalism Working Group’s Support and Opportunities committee focused interviews 

indicate that observers do not feel that the current lack of standardization is a significant 

impediment to movement between programs. In the case of the first supposition, it is unlikely 

that any real benefits exist. 

The second supposition is that data standardization will lead to greater facility of use by a larger 

number of end users. This benefit is undeniable, but also seems inevitable to result in end users 

taking little or no time to review any supplied documentation or metadata. They would then at 

best lose the opportunity to learn about the fishery, and at worst employ flawed assumptions that 

reduce or eliminate the validity of their end analyses. Standardization will also require consensus 

by end users on the format of the data, something that seems difficult to achieve. Finally, end 

user proponents of standardization cite the time and effort required to convert data from programoutput to individual user format. The time and funding required by end users to create conversion 

programs cannot be looked upon as a reason to move toward standardization, because even if 

program standardization is adopted these conversion programs will be needed anyway to convert 

existing legacy data to the new format. 

 The third supposition involves the idea that fisheries managers want standardization. As above, 

this concept is likely reality, but it is important to consider the desire for standardization relative 

to other needs. I estimate the cost to implement standardization in the US Pelagic Observer 

Program to be at least $173,550, which represents about 25% of the yearly cost to deploy 

observers on vessels in this program. At least in this fishery, managers express concern more 

often about low coverage levels in certain time and area strata than they do about the need for 

standardization. It seems unlikely that 

in the face of funding difficulties, 

managers would prefer 

standardization to increased coverage. 

Managers often communicate desires 

through memoranda, emails, 

conference calls, and workshops; but 

priorities are only communicated by 

funding. The relative lack of funding 

to promote standardization (at least in 

the U.S.) should be enough to 

illustrate how important the subject is 

to managers. 

Lawrence Beerkircher 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

 

Observer programs, and those who fund them, need to closely weigh the true costs of conversion 

to standardized formats versus the actual benefits before making decisions to implement these 

formats. Moreover, observer programs need to consider their primary objectives and “customers” 

(which are generally regional and specific in nature), whether or not they are meeting those 

objectives and pleasing those customers, and if changing to standardized formats would 

negatively impact their primary objectives and customers, before implementing standardization. 

In summary, the United Nations, a diverse organization devoted to world peace, finds it possible 

to exist by transacting business in various languages and even alphabets. Surely, if world peace 

does not require speaking the same language, counting fish must not? 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 61
The data collection regulation of the European Commission 

*Björn Stockhausen1, John Anderson1, Jenny Nord1, Doug Beare1,2 

1

 European Commission, Joint Research Center, Maritime Affairs Unit 

2

IMARES, Wageningen 

Introduction

The European Commission administrates the vast sea areas surrounding the Member States of the 

European Union. One of the instruments to manage the marine resources within the Common 

Fishery Policy (CFP) is the Data Collection Regulation (DCR), which recently underwent 

extensive revision to improve scientific advice and efficiency. 

Methods

The Data Collection Regulation (DCR) of the European Commission (EC) was implemented in 

2001. Its purpose was to collect biological and economic data relating to fisheries targeted by 

fishing fleets belonging to EU Member States (MS). Although it was a good first attempt to 

collect the relevant data necessary to improve EU fisheries management, it has been widely 

recognized for some time that issues exist in relation to the quality of the data and the differing 

data collection methodologies employed by the Member States. Thus, in 2005, the EC started a 

consultation process to develop a new, improved 

regulation that would better assist fisheries 

management decision making; the Data Collection 

Framework (DCF). In force since the beginning of 

2009, the new framework includes several 

improvements. 

Bjorn Stockhausen 

European Commission, Italy 

Results

The new DCF features, inter alia, data collection on 

the basis of métiers, data to allow for an assessment 

in terms of Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management 

(EBFM), the collection of economic and socioeconomic parameters, a more coherent data 

handling from the vessel to policy makers and other 

end-users, and a possible penalization of Member 

States in case of non-compliance. 

These improvements will contribute to the more 

precise and comprehensive assessment of data, to 

more efficient policy decisions and to a more 

sustainable exploitation pattern of European marine 

resources. 

 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 62
 

The development of national standards for protected species 

observers in the U.S. 

*Kyle Baker1,James Wilder2, Teresa Turk3, Howard Goldstein4

National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office1

, Alaska Regional Office2, 

National Observer Program3, Protected Resources Division4

Introduction

Protected species observers (PSOs) are commonly required in the U.S. to reduce the potential for 

adverse effects on protected species (i.e., threatened and endangered species and marine 

mammals) during some activities. Requirements to use PSOs are typically issued by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the authorities of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). A lead permitting agency or other permit holder is 

typically responsible for implementing monitoring and mitigation measures. Data collected by 

PSOs during seismic survey activities can provide reliable information regarding the 

effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation requirements, scale of impacts, improve protocols, and 

identify data collection needs for future activities. Currently, PSO requirements can vary 

considerably between project type and geographic region, resulting in inconsistencies in data 

collection requirements. Standardization of observer requirements will resolve many current 

issues and improve the effectiveness and management of PSO programs. 

As a result of meetings with observer and industry stakeholders regarding the seismic PSO 

program and review of reports and administration of the existing program, an independent 

approach to observer hiring, training requirements, and performance measures were identified as 

core areas that could benefit from standardization. A Protected Species Observer Working Group 

(PSOWG) was formed in 2008 to review PSO programs needs and recommend actions for the 

development of national PSO standards for the two existing seismic survey PSO programs in the 

Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. The PSOWG has been a cooperative effort between NMFS and the 

Minerals Management Service (MMS), the lead federal agency with oversight of oil and gas 

activities on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf who has been considering PSO needs for their 

programs nationally. Particular attention was given to the large observer programs that currently 

exist for seismic surveys occurring in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

Results/Discussion

The PSOWG report and recommendations for implementation of national PSO standards using 

seismic surveys as the modeled activity are expected to be available in summer or fall 2009. 

Implementation of the program within NMFS and MMS will depend on the future decisions of 

those agencies. Several observer standards or national policies have already been developed by 

the NMFS National Observer Program (NOP) for monitoring fisheries. These existing policies 

may be utilized or modified for their applicability to the development of standards for a national 

PSO program for non-fisheries activities. The PSOWG has recommended actions on key issues 

needed to implement national standards. The core PSO issues identified pertain to training, PSO 

eligibility, safety, data collection, data management, and reducing conflicts of interest. The 

national PSO program model involves the coordination of stakeholders primarily responsible for 

implementing different core areas of the program (Table 1). Typically, federal agencies monitor 

or provide oversight to ensure that mitigation and monitoring measures are properly 

implemented; however, it is typically the PSO providers who carry out requirements by hiring 

PSOs and managing day-to-day monitoring and data collection activities. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 63
 

Stakeholder Groups 

NMFS Permitting Agency 

(MMS) 

PSO Trainer PSO Provider 

Training standards Provider agreements Conducts training Employs PSOs 

Trainer agreements Data reporting Inventories equipment Deploys PSOs to Industry 

Data collection standards Data quality assurance Travel/accommodations 

Data management Prepares reports 

PSO eligibility Insurance 

Safety and health 

Provider Requirements 

Provide mechanism for 

industry payment or funding 

of PSO training and services 

Provides other services 

Data quality assurance and 

quality control 

National standards are expected to clarify roles and responsibilities and result in several benefits 

to stakeholders. National standards will provide expectations to the industry and PSOs during 

project planning. A national PSO 

program will promote effective 

communication between PSOs, 

program staff, government 

agencies, and industry. Figure 1 

shows the possible agreements 

that may be needed between the 

major stakeholder groups. 

Clarifying roles and expectations 

can avoid conflicts of interest a

make the PSO program more 

transparent to any perceived 

biases. Standardized 

requirements will provide 

consistent eligibility 

requirements for PSOs working 

anywhere in the U.S. PSOs will 

be better trained in safety and 

health issues, and covered under 

safety and health requirements 

for observers in NMFS NOP. 

The infrastructure necessary to 

carry out PSO functions may be 

created and maintained if standardized nationally. Consistent data collection methods and 

practices will improve data quality, monitoring of take, evaluating mitigation effectiveness, and 

better inform adaptive management strategies. Public meetings may be needed between 

stakeholders detailing expectations to meet the new standards of the PSO program, reduce 

conflicts of interests, and maintain the overall integrity of the program. Overall, a standardized 

PSO program will improve coordination among stakeholders and better support the management 

of protected species. 

nd 

Figure 1. The interaction between stakeholders and agreements 

that may be needed to implement a standardized PSO program. 

NMFS Training Contract 

Lead 

Agency 

ESA/MMPA 

Requirements 

PSO 

Providers 

Training Path 1

Observer Services 

Paid by Industry 

Indirect Training 

Costs 

Training Path 2

PSO Training 

Costs Paid by 

Industry Directly to 

Lead Agency 

PSO 

Trainers 

 Provider Contract 

Expectations 

PSO 

Deployed 

(Industry)

PSO Provider 

or PSO Pays 

for Training 

Funding 

Agreement

Table 1. The roles of the main players in a standardized seismic survey PSO program 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 64
 

Challenges to data standardization between on-board and 

alternative platform observation of small vessels 

*Michelle S. Passerotti1

, Trip Kolkmeyer2, Barbie L. Byrd2

IAP World Services / National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center, Panama City Laboratory, Panama City, Florida, USA1

, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Beaufort Laboratory, Beaufort, North 

Carolina, USA2

Introduction

The southeast gillnet fishery observer program (SGFOP) was first implemented in 1993 to 

monitor protected resources interactions in the king mackerel, Scomberomorous cavalla, fishery 

operating in the southeast US. Since that time, the gillnet fishery has undergone many changes 

requiring adaptation of the observer program on all levels. Presently, the southeast US gillnet 

fishery is primarily made up of small vessels (~ 7 – 12 m in length), many of which frequently 

change gear type and target species to follow species abundance patterns or fishery closures1

. 

Because of their small size, varying gear set-up and vessel layout may preclude fisheries 

observers from safely observing fishing operations while on-board. Additionally, some vessels 

may not have space for observer safety, sampling, or protected resources gear, further 

complicating efforts to cover them. Data collection from this fishery is of high importance, 

however, not only for protected resources monitoring but also for quantification of catch and 

bycatch. One possible way to overcome these issues is the use of an alternative platform (AP) for 

observing, namely a small outboard vessel manned by a NMFS vessel operator and the observer. 

Methods

The southeast gillnet fishery observer program is currently collaborating with personnel at the 

NMFS laboratory in Beaufort, NC, to investigate the potential for use of an alternative platform 

(AP) approach within the southeast gillnet fishery. The NMFS Southeast Regional Office funds 

an AP program coordinated by the Beaufort laboratory for the purpose of monitoring interactions 

with marine mammals2

 , and more recently, sea turtles. In June 2008, an observer from SGFOP 

was deployed to Cape Hatteras, NC, and accompanied AP program observers on two trips via a 

small outboard vessel operated by the AP program. These trips resulted in observation of 3 gillnet 

sets by the SGFOP observer utilizing the AP method, with data collection in SGFOP format. The 

observer then generated an internal report addressing the feasibility of integrating the AP method 

into current SGFOP protocol. Issues and concerns raised from the internal report are currently in 

review by both programs in an effort to reconcile the two methods and move forward with 

integration. 

Results/Discussion

Several issues for reconciliation were raised: 1) Using the AP method, species identification, 

number of fish caught, and disposition and number of discarded fish can be difficult to obtain due 

to the distance required to avoid obstruction of fishing activity; 2) collection of direct 

measurements and biological samples is unlikely unless the fishing vessel is boarded or fish are 

transferred between vessels, which can be difficult to implement consistently; and 3) guidelines 

for observer safety must be created to manage the hazards involved with small vessel operation 

by fisheries observers. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 65
Although the AP method works well for monitoring fishing gear for entanglement of protected 

resources, it poses some challenges for other goals of the SGFOP. Inherent problems exist in 

standardizing data collection between the on-board and AP methods currently in use. We are 

currently working to address these issues. Finding solutions to these problems will greatly 

enhance the ability of the SGFOP to gather valuable data from small vessels, for which 

observation has been largely absent in the past. 

Notes: 

1. Passerotti, M.S. and J.K. Carlson 2009. Catch and Bycatch in U.S. Southeast Gillnet Fisheries, 2008. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-583, 18 p. 

2. Kolkmeyer, T., B. Guthrie, B.L. Byrd, and A.A. Hohn. 2007. Report on the Alternative Platform 

Observer Program in North Carolina: March 2006 to March 2007. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-558, 20 p. 

Introducing e-monitoring into the mix of AFMAs monitoring 

options: insights benefits and costs 

Bob Stanley 

 Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Australia

When considering e-Monitoring and its worth in 

the matrix of options for the monitoring of 

fisheries Australian Fisheries Management 

Authority decided upon a staged approach. The 

stages included a proof of concept stage where 

we identified and trialled the systems to 

determine the capability of the systems, their 

relative strengths and weakness against the other 

monitoring options. The proof of concept stage 

also allowed us to showcase the technology to 

the fishing industry. The interest and support 

from industry was encouraging and they 

indicated a preference to progress e-Monitoring 

further. The second stage was to undertake a 

cost benefit study that benchmarked eMonitoring costs against the costs of existing 

observer programmes. This study identified a 

number of different thresholds in a range of 

fisheries where e-Monitoring would be cost 

effective when compared to observers. The third 

stage was to bring together and model all the 

monitoring options such that we had a detailed 

understanding of the strengths, weakness, 

flexibility, extendibility and costs of each of the 

Robert Stanley 

Australian Fisheries Management Authority 

Australia

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 66
 

monitoring options. The presentation will outline the key features and elements in the costs and 

capabilities of the monitoring options that AFMA has identified as preferable as it moves to going 

operational with an all of fleet e-Monitoring system in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery. 

Computer science technology applied to data collection and 

data management 

*Oscar Guzman1

, Mauricio González1, Juan Carrasco1, Claudio Bernal1, 

Carlos Vera1, Marco Troncoso1.. 

Instituto de Fomento Pesquero, IFOP, Chile1 

Introduction

IFOP, as non profit marine research institute, has the mission to provide to the Under Secretariat 

of Fisheries in Chile, the technical information and scientific basis for the regulation of Chilean 

Fisheries. The scope of the data requirements is following: 

Fisheries and biological data requirements 

7 long term programs to monitor main national fisheries; 4 permanent specific fisheries research 

projects; 6 no permanent specific fisheries research projects 

Coverage of data sampling 

9 Sampling centers along Chilean Coasr; 48 Sampling points; 3,300 annual surveys onboard 

industrial vessels; 14,400 annual surveys to small craft fisherman; 20,500 annual inquiries of 

fishing log books; 2.9 million sample units of fish, crustaceans and benthic. 

Methods

With the intention to improve the process of data production, since year 2005 a group of scientists 

of IFOP has developed a new computer science system for data collection, data management, and 

automatic publication of fishing and biological indicators in Web Page. The project was financed 

by the Governmental Corporation for Development of Production (Corporación de Fomento de la 

Producción CORFO, www.corfo.cl) 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 67
 

Figure 1. Data collection and transmission with Personal Digital Assistant. *Electronic data form download to 

PDA, implies that Sc. Observer must connect PDA to data base, select the fisheries in which will collect data, and 

download automatically to PDA the needed forms.

Results

The general configuration of the system is displayed in figures 1 and 2. 

Figure 2. Procedure for data quantity and error control

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 68
 

Main attained changes:

ACTIVTY Year 2006 Year 2009 

Time delay between data collection and input in main data 

base. 

80 days 

delay 

15 days delay 

Report of data requirement fulfillment regarding quantity, 

opportunity and coverage. 

No report Monthly report 

Report of data error No report Monthly report 

Automatic publication of Biological Indicators in Web Page. No report Monthly report** 

**Monthly report per fisheries including trends of last 5 years of following indicators: landings, effort, size 

distribution, mean size and sexual maturity indices. 

Evaluating the reliability of at-sea observer release estimates in 

British Columbia offshore groundfish trawl fisheries 

*Matthew H. Grinnell1, Sean P. Cox1, Rick D. Stanley2 and Andy B. Cooper1

1. School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, BC, 

Canada 

2. Pacific Biological Station, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, BC, Canada 

Introduction

The at-sea observer program (ASOP) for offshore groundfish trawl vessels in British Columbia, 

Canada has collected essential catch monitoring data, including estimates of at-sea releases, since 

1996 when the individual transferable quota (ITQ) management program began. ASOP estimates 

of at-sea releases (releases), in particular, are used by scientists to assess fish stocks and by 

managers to set, allocate, and monitor quota sharing among vessels. Observer estimates of 

releases directly affect vessel profitability because some of these releases are deducted from the 

individual vessel quota. For example, because the ITQ management program holds harvesters 

individually and financially accountable for dead marketable-sized releases, economic incentives 

may favour low reporting rates for releases of marketable or dead fish. Therefore, it is critical to 

evaluate at-sea observer programs because elements of human nature could affect the reliability 

of at-sea release estimates and the equitable treatment of quota sharing among vessels. 

In this study, we evaluate the potential reliability of fisheries observer estimates of at-sea releases 

of sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) and Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) that are both 

caught incidentally in British Columbia's bottom trawl fisheries. We develop a regression tree 

approach to: (1) quantify the importance and relationship between physical, biological, and social 

predictor variables and release rates; (2) quantify discrepancies between reported release rates and 

expected (i.e., predicted) release rates given the regression tree model; and (3) determine whether 

individual observers tend to systematically under- or over-report releases. 

Methods

Harvesting of sablefish and halibut in British Columbia is managed by the ITQ management 

program where vessels are allocated fixed (but transferable) proportions of the total quota. 

Sablefish is a high-value species that is caught incidentally by bottom trawl vessels targeting 

flatfish. More than 95% of trawl fishing events between 1996 and 2006 reported zero at-sea 

releases of marketable sablefish. Pacific halibut, on the other hand, are commonly encountered 

during bottom trawl fishing operations for a wide range of species, and the majority of tows 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 69
 

report at least 20% dead-released halibut. Retention of Pacific halibut by trawl vessels is 

prohibited, yet vessels must have halibut quota to account for the weight that is released dead. 

We assessed the reliability of release estimates for sablefish and halibut using a randomized 

regression tree approach known as the random forest (RF). The RF attempts to predict the 

proportion of marketable-released (MR) sablefish or dead-released (DR) halibut on individual 

trawl tows. Regression tree predictions use up to 26 and 24 predictors for sablefish (58,315 tows) 

and halibut (59,124 tows) respectively. Predictors include environmental (e.g., year, month, 

depth), social (e.g., observer experience, skipper/observer familiarity), economic (e.g., vessel 

quota remaining, fleet quota available), fishing event (e.g., total catch, end time, observation 

method) and vessel-specific (e.g., hold capacity) factors. Fishing events for which the RF model 

predicts a high release rate for either species, yet only a low proportion was recorded by the 

observer, are further investigated using linear mixed-effects (LME) models. The LME attempts to 

estimate individual effect sizes (i.e., "observer effects") for each of the 322 and 324 observers that 

encountered sablefish and halibut, respectively. 

Results

The RF model accounted for 47% and 23% of the variability in reported at-sea releases of MR 

sablefish and DR halibut, respectively. The three most important variables for MR sablefish are 

the year and month of the fishing event, followed by observer experience. The marginal effect of 

each predictor (after averaging over the other predictors) indicates that MR rates of sablefish were 

higher in the 2005-2006 fishing year, and lower during the months of January through May, and 

lower for observers that have more than 40 days experience at sea. The three most important 

predictors for predicting DR halibut are observer experience, followed by the depth of the tow 

and the year. Like the sablefish observers, lower rates of DR halibut are reported when observers 

have more than 40 days experience. Lower DR rates are also reported at depths between 50 to 

200m. Although year is important, predicted rates were fairly consistent across years. 

Although interactions between predictors can make direct interpretation of marginal effects 

difficult, the model predicts that observers with less than 25 days experience at sea report 

approximately 10 ± 2% (mean ± 2x standard error) more MR sablefish, and 5 ± 2% more DR 

halibut than observers with more than 50 days experience. The two least important predictors for 

both sablefish and halibut were "observation method" (i.e. whether the data was reported by the 

observer or skipper), followed by "end time" (i.e. whether the fishing event ended during the day 

or night). The observation method may have low importance because more than 98% of tows are 

reported by observers. 

As expected, our analysis of individual observer reporting rates using LME indicated that 

observers both over- and under-estimate releases relative to model predictions; however, some 

observers show greater tendencies toward under-reporting. For example, the bootstrapped 95th

percentile range of observer effects is less than zero for 8 of 322 observers that encountered 

sablefish, and 27 of 324 observers that encountered halibut. Using RF predicted release rates as 

"true" rates, these observers under-reported a median weight of approximately 1 tonne (t) of MR 

sablefish, and 11 t of DR halibut in total over the 8-year period considered. These differences are 

small compared to total (i.e., for all observers over the 8-years considered) reported MR sablefish 

and DR halibut, equal to 127 t and 1,051 t respectively. 

Discussion

Our analysis showed that "observer experience" is among the most important predictors of at-sea 

releases of sablefish and halibut, and in both cases predictions tended to be lower for observers 

with less experience. This result suggests that the "human factor" cannot be ruled out as an 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 70
 

influence on reported at-sea release rates. However, because model predictions are not referenced 

by an independent baseline, agreement between observed and predicted releases does not 

necessarily imply accurate release reports. For example, we would be unable to detect widespread 

over- or under-reporting if it were occurring equally among all observers. On the other hand, the 

potential under-reporting levels observed in our analyses were small compared to total reported 

MR sablefish and DR halibut. Reports of MR sablefish and DR halibut are relatively consistent 

between the majority of observers. Thus, the analysis does not provide strong reasons to suspect 

that at-release reports are unreliable for their intended purpose. 

Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Comment/Question 

Keith Davis 

Fisheries Observer

Association for Professional Observers 

USA 

I wish to address the UN translation 

programs. The U.N. has translators to ensure 

that a site can be comprehended. I suppose 

if we did have translation databases for all 

the programs in place so that all the like data 

from one program to another could be 

utilized together then no one would be 

arguing for standardization. You mentioned 

that what is important is the customer of the 

data. I say that we all should at least 

consider looking forward, beyond the boxes 

of our programs to ensure that the data that 

is collected can be at least potentially 

utilized in the future beyond its current 

utility, as Bob suggested, with foresight to 

reuse the data into the future. That is what 

standardization can help with. 

In terms of funding, you are right that the 

initial cost will be high, but don’t you agree 

that standardization would save money even 

on the a local regional level especially on 

the larger level due to greater efficiency and 

utilization of the data resources, observer 

trainings and recruitment of observers? 

Response 

Lawrence Beerkircher 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

In regards to the U.N point about translation 

programs yes, you can say that those 

translation programs and the translators 

exist, and if we had them in fisheries it 

would be great. However, if we move to 

standardization and standardized data 

formats, you’re going to require those 

translation programs anyway because you’re 

going to have all this existing legacy data 

that needs to keep being used in terms of 

time series. 

So you are going to have to develop those 

translation programs, no matter what, to 

translate the legacy data. Either way you’re 

going to have to do it if you went into 

standardization. 

Do I agree if you’d save money in the long 

run? I suppose way down the line you’d 

save money in the long run. The issue 

would be by the time ( I can’t help but 

speculate that) you got finished, there 

would be a whole set of new questions that 

needed to be answered to bring back up to 

speed onto what new information needed to 

be put into a standardized format. 

So, yes, I agree that way down the line, in 

the long run there would probably be a cost 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 71
 

savings. I think you really need to poke at 

that a little bit and do some real cost benefit 

analysis as much as possible to figure that 

out. 

Comment/Question

Donald MacIssac 

A.I.S., Inc. 

USA 

I also have a question on data standards. 

What’s the future for data standards since 

it’s unlikely that the observer program is 

going to rebuild their databases and all their 

data forms or data structures on the backend 

(which I think you alluded to in your 

abstract) using data warehouse technology? 

The software is already out there. A lot of 

businesses use it to extract transformed data, 

and load it into a dimensional model for 

analysis. 

Response 

Lawrence Beerkircher 

NOAA Fisheries Service

USA 

Yes, absolutely. I think that’s the way it 

really should go, in terms of the data 

standardization. The various programs 

certainly can contribute, especially the IT 

infrastructure. I think at the NOAA level it 

could easily be done. But rather than pay a 

person at each individual observer program 

to fix legacy data, having a few people at 

national level design that fix of translating 

the data would be a lot more cost effective. 

Question/ Comment

Gregg Williams 

International Halibut Commission 

Canada 

I have a question for Matthew. I appreciated 

your talk on the BC trawl fishery. Two 

questions come to mind. The first, you 

stated at the outset that your interest was in 

getting a better picture, if you will, of the 

total mortality of sable fish. I was just 

wondering why you didn’t include the 

unmarketable discards and only took 

account of marketable discards. 

Response 

Matthew Grinnell 

Simon Fraser University

Canada 

I just considered marketable discards with 

respect to unmarketable discards, looking at 

the proportion. If you look at the economics 

of discarding, that’s one proportion where 

there may be an economic incentive to have 

lower reported rates of marketable releases. 

In terms of total mortality, the weight of 

marketable dead fish does count towards the 

TAC. But the weight of unmarketable fish 

does not come into effect there. 

Comment/Question

Gregg Williams 

International Halibut Commission 

Canada 

My second question had to do with what I 

call the new observer effect. Based on your 

variable of observer experience or number 

of days at sea, estimates were quite a bit 

higher, for more experienced observers. Do 

you have any ideas, hypotheses for that 

particularly? 

Response 

Matthew Grinnell 

Simon Fraser University 

Canada

I think there could be a number of reasons. 

One of them could be that new observers 

may not have the confidence to come up and 

talk to a skipper as much as with a more 

experienced observer, to say that they’re 

reporting these releases as being of 

marketable size. If an observer were to do 

that, it may give the skipper the chance to, 

retain the fish instead of releasing them. I’m 

sure there could be other reasons as well. It 

could be that new observers are possibly less 

accurate in estimates at first. So these 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 72
 

results are more showing the relationship but 

not the reason for that. 

Comment/Question

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service

USA 

I give you kudos on trying to establish 

standards to your protected resource 

observers and bring them under some of the 

similar guidelines that the NMFS fishery 

observers have to abide by. But my 

question is in your flow chart for the 

training. It goes from NMFS to the 

protective resource observers. I was just 

wondering who would pay for that? Is that 

going to be from the Minerals Management 

Service side of the house or from the NMFS 

side of the house? 

Response 

Kyle Baker 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

That’s a really good question and one that 

hasn’t escaped others from asking either. 

Actually, we’re in the middle of discussing 

that with the minerals management service 

and discussing a couple of mechanisms to 

have industry pay for that. Industry right 

now is absorbing these costs through the 

contracts with individual companies who are 

already providing the training for their 

employees. So we just need a different 

mechanism to remove that direct agreement 

with industry and protected species 

observers and move that, preferably, to the 

NMFS side of the house. 

Comment/Question

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

As a follow-up, as you adopt some of the 

NOAA fisheries observer guidelines, does 

that then give the protective resources 

observers the same kind of protections as 

MSA observers? Are they going to be 

considered eligible for the same 

compensation as MSA observers injured at 

sea? There are specific recourses for them. 

Will that then apply to the protective 

resource observers? 

Response 

Kyle Baker 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Truthfully, I’m not certain. We want to 

apply the eligibility in health and safety 

standards to protective species observers, 

because there’s multiple agencies involved 

here – in the fisheries program, NMFS is 

primarily responsible for observers. 

 In this arrangement, under the ESA and 

MMPA, we’re essentially requiring certain 

mitigation measures of other agencies to 

follow, and they can decide to implement 

them or not. So it’s really other agencies’ 

responsibility. So there’s a dual 

responsibility here where NMFS is 

developing standards for training, and that 

linkage to actual deployment between 

NMFS and MMS is still being discussed. 

So that’s a really good question and an issue 

we’ll need to investigate more. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 73
 

Comment/Question

Kim Dietrich 

Consultant 

USA 

These questions are directed at Kyle. Will 

these standards that you’re developing be 

open to public comment? Will they be 

published in the Federal Register, etc.? 

You mentioned that you were trying to 

parallel those eligibility standards with the 

fisheries observer standards. I’m wondering 

if you know what percentage of the current 

protected species observers would basically 

qualify under those standards, and if it’s a 

high proportion, will they be grandfathered 

into the new system? 

Response 

Kyle Baker 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Yes. We did discuss grandfathering. At a 

minimum, we would want everybody to get 

up to speed to the current requirements. So 

there might be some catch up. There will be 

grandfathering. We don’t want current 

observers to be left and drop off the face of 

the earth. That’s not our intention 

whatsoever. As new observers come in they 

will be required to meet all the new 

standards. You have posed some good 

questions and ones we are thinking about 

and will address. 

Comment/Question

Kim Dietrich 

Consultant 

USA 

Will there be a public comment period on 

those standards? 

Response 

Kyle Baker 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

We have a lot of work to do. I’d imagine 

we’re going to have to put it out for 

comment. We’re going to have stakeholder 

meetings. We’re going to get everybody’s 

input that needs to have input. 

Comment/Question

Craig Loveridge

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand 

Michelle, you were showing the two 

methods that you used to monitor the catch 

and ensure fisheries, have you done any trips 

where you’ve employed both methods at the 

same time? or will that be something you do 

in the future? 

Response 

Michelle Passerotti 

IAP Worldwide Services 

USA 

No we haven’t. But it could be a good 

approach to see where exactly our issues are 

going to lie. It’s a problem that we’ve been 

having over the past three or four years as 

the fishery shrinks in size. With regulations 

we’ve lost a lot of our big shark gill netters. 

So that the boats are getting smaller, the 

targets are getting smaller. So it’s just 

something that’s popped up recently, and 

we’ve said, ”Hey this other program works 

well. Let’s see what we can glean from it 

that maybe we can apply to ours.” But we 

haven’t gotten that far and that’s definitely 

something that we could address in the 

future. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 74
 

Comment/Question 

Masud Hasan 

SAR and CO Ltd. 

Bangladesh 

I have a question to Bjorn Stockhausen. We 

know the European Commission is very 

much conscious about antibiotics and 

growth hormones that are imposed in the 

shrimp Aquaculture sector. My question is 

whether the European Commission has 

taken necessary steps to defend these health 

hazards and growth hormones and 

nitophuranes in the same sector, and the 

shrimps that are imported in the E.U. 

countries, what regulations are you meeting? 

Response 

Bjorn Stockhausen 

European Commission 

Italy 

It’s rather a question of food safety now, 

right? I think it’s not covered within the 

common fisheries policy. It’s more covered 

first in food safety, but otherwise, like 

regulations which relate to the importation 

of product trade and food safety. 

Comment/Question 

Masud Hasan 

SAR and CO Ltd. 

Bangladesh 

You’re saying E.U. has regulations on food 

safety on shrimp (only for shrimps) Shrimp 

are grown as an aquaculture product, and 

growth hormones that can be health 

hazardous are sometimes incorporated. This 

is very much harmful for human 

consumption. I would think the EU has 

regulations on this. 

Comment/Question

Jann Martinsohn 

European Commission 

Italy 

As Bjorn said, this is relating rather to 

European safety standards. There’s a 

regulation called 178 which is concerned 

with that. It’s actually the business of the 

European food safety agency. I mean, we 

could certainly discuss this in privacy but it 

has nothing to do directly with the common 

fisheries policy Bjorn was referring to. 

Comment/Question 

Pierre Meke 

Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and 

Animal Industries 

Cameroon

My question is for Mr. Guzman, who 

presented the use of computer science for 

data collection and data management. I 

think what you have just showed is a 

solution for managers who want always to 

see on the spot how the fishery is moving 

and to pay their money. I would like to 

know the number of species that you are 

monitoring in your system and if you have a 

program, a software that you are using? Is it 

modularized to support broad use or is it just 

localized in Chile? 

Response 

Oscar Guzman 

Instituto De Fomento Pesquero 

Chile 

I do not remember exactly the number of 

species but we are talking about 200 or 

more. It was in the slides. The software we 

develop is for Chilean purposes, but of 

course, we are open to share that with other 

countries. 

I would like to add one more subject 

regarding those electronic data acquisition 

systems and standardization. The key issue 

is training. The Chilean government has a 

special regulation that allows the companies 

or institutions to invest up to three percent of 

taxes into training for the laborers. So, these 

are very good ways to get financing and to 

apply these to the laborers and the scientific 

observers. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 75
 

Comment/Question

Pierre Chavance 

French Institute for Development 

France 

I work in tropical tuna observer program. I 

think that the main question is not 

standardization of collecting system, but 

more the ability to exchange data between 

different systems that should collaborate for 

assessment, for example. So I think it’s 

certainly necessary at a certain point to 

agree on units, on codes, on concepts but not 

necessarily at the level of collecting data. 

My question is do you have any experience 

in the assembly? Is there any experience to 

develop this kind of platform, exchange data 

platform between different systems to be 

able to (for certain types of analysis) to 

exchange data? 

Response 

Lawrence Beerkircher 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

There are a variety of issues with that. The 

way that I’m familiar with is through 

ICATT, with the tuna management. 

Generally from there the data goes to our 

stock assessment scientists, which then go to 

the stock assessment meetings and use the 

data there. It does not come back to me that 

there’s a problem. In the shifting of data 

between one person to another, the other 

issue which might be more a U.S. issue than 

anything else are these observer data are 

confidential. Therefore, you run into big 

problems in terms of sending information 

over the internet. 

Moderator/ Comment 

Charles Gray 

NSW Department of Primary Industries 

Australia 

I’d just like to thank all the presenters in 

conclusion of this session, even in the 

previous sessions, for their time and efforts 

in putting together their talks. I encourage 

everyone to go away and think about their 

data and how they can improve the quality 

of the data that they are collecting. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 76
Panel Session 3: 

Using fishery monitoring information in assessments and 

management 

Moderator: Jim Nance, National Marine Fisheries Service, USA 

Speakers 

Charles Gray – Australia 

Use of observer-based surveys in monitoring and assessing environmental conditions imposed on 

developing fishries. 

Kimberley Murray – USA 

Sea turtle bycatch in U.S. Mid-Atlantic gillnet gear: characteristics, magnitude, and opportunities for 

conservation. 

Lisa Borges – Belgium 

The evolution of a discard policy in Europe. 

Lee Benaka- USA 

Fisheries observers and bycatch reduction research. 

Francis Van Oordt – Peru 

The Peruvian Anchovy fishery observer program and its role in monitoring interactions with top predators. 

Alpha Abdul Bangura – Sierra Leone 

Fisheries observer program in Sierra Leone and its implications for fisheries management. 

Justin Monin Amande – Cote d’Ivoire 

Estimating bycatch and discards from observer data in tropical tuna purse seine fisheries: the case 

study of silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) in the Indian Ocean tuna purse seine fishery. 

Introduction to the session 

One of the biggest reasons for observer programs is to scientifically document the at-sea activities 

of a fishery. What are the target species and the level of catch? Is discarding of target and 

bycatch catch species happening and at what level? These are just a few of the myriad of very 

important questions that observer programs develop sampling designs to determine. Offshore 

sampling by observers is not a simple task, but it is critical task that is essential to assessment of 

stocks, and development of Fishery Management Plans and Biological Opinions. The speakers in 

Session 3 used their talks to outline the critical nature of the observer data for fishery 

management and assessment analysis in areas around the world. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 77
 

Use of observer-based surveys to assess conditions imposed 

on developing fisheries: an example from a shark fishery in 

Eastern Australia 

*Charles Gray & William Macbeth 

Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre NSW 

Australia 

Strict conditions often regulate the development of fisheries, including, defined limits on the 

composition and quantities of targeted catch, by-catch (by-product) and discards, habitat 

interactions, interactions with rare and threatened species and ecosystem impacts. Observer-based 

surveys can be used to monitor and assess fisheries in accordance with imposed conditions and to 

assist the development of longer term management plans for sustainable fisheries. An example is 

provided from eastern Australia where an observer-based program is being used in the 

development of small-scale shark fishery. 

A range of line-fishing methods is used to commercially catch finfish and sharks in New South 

Wales coastal and continental shelf waters as part of the Ocean Trap and Line (OTL) Fishery. 

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this fishery identified that the composition of the 

shark component of catches was little known and that discarding was poorly understood and 

potentially of high risk to sharks. This was compounded during the mid-2000’s when there were 

substantial increases in fishing effort for, and catches of, sharks by commercial line fishers 

(Figure 1). The mean (± se) annual catch of sharks (by processed weight; all sharks combined) in 

the OTL fishery between 1998/99 and 2004/05 was 173.2 (± 9.8) tonnes, ranging between 144.2 

(2003/04) and 219.7 tonnes (2001/02). Subsequent to 2004/05, the annual catch of sharks 

increased considerably to 457.2 tonnes in 2006/07; an increase of 200% over a two-year period. 

Fishers (5 businesses) primarily responsible for the increase in shark catches indicated that it was 

due to them specifically targeting the sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus), using setlines and 

trotlines in waters that were not traditionally fished. Unfortunately, information regarding the 

species composition of these particular catches was not possible owing to the systematic use of 

the species category ‘Shark, Unspecified’ by the fishers on their catch returns (Figure 1) and the 

unsuccessful attempts to place scientific observers onboard sandbar shark fishing trips. 

This latter fishing activity was deemed separate from that of traditional line-fishing and in 

response to this situation specific conditions and restrictions were imposed on fishers who 

continued with this activity (above those imposed on traditional fishers). These restrictions were 

devised on the basis of: 1) intensive consultation with fishing industry representatives and 

advisory councils; 2) a review of comparable shark fisheries elsewhere in Australia and the 

world; and 3) an urgent need for intensive research into the fishing operations, composition of 

catches and biological characteristics (e.g. abundance, distribution, population structure, growth 

and reproduction) of the main species involved. In summary, fishers participating in the newly 

defined sandbar shark fishery between 1 September 2008 and 30 June 2009 obtained restricted 

permits that included a Total Allowable Combined Catch of 100 tonnes of sandbar shark for the 

season, a bycatch trip limit of 4 carcasses of other whaler, hammerhead and mako species up to a 

combined 200kg, prior reporting of impending fishing to compliance officers and the mandatory 

hosting of observers on fishing trips. The cost of this program was paid through the purchasing 

their specific access permit. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 78
The early data obtained from the on-board observers quickly identified that catches of sharks 

contained a considerable mixture of species, with sandbar sharks comprising only about 40% of 

catches, with several other whaler species including dusky and spinner sharks being of 

considerable significance. The new information obtained from the survey allowed management to 

swiftly alter the conditions of the permits that relaxed the bycatch trip limit and moved the TACC 

to include all species of sharks captured for the 2008/09 season. New management plans for the 

entire shark fishery are currently being developed in consultation with the wider industry, 

including the traditional faction. These plans are now being developed based on the scientific data 

obtained from observer surveys. 

The observer survey has also provided the avenue to collect valuable biological material 

(vertebrae for age determination, size and sex composition, reproductive data) of sharks and has 

been very valuable in helping educate fishers to correctly identify species of sharks. 

In summary, the observer-based survey was vital in collecting the required information for inseason adaptive management of the fishery and it will also continue to collect vital data to 

develop better management systems for sustainable shark fisheries in the future. 

Figure 1. Catches of sharks (by processed weight) in the NSW OTL fishery during the decade between and 

including the financial years 1998/99 and 2007/08, as reported via the fisher-dependent catch-reporting system 

(NSW DPI, 2009). Column data (left y-axis) are for the total catch of all sharks combined (includes shark-like rays 

but excludes stingrays and stingarees); line data (right y-axis) are for the main relevant catch-reporting categories 

(or groups of categories) comprising the total catch of sharks, as used by fishers during that period. 

 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 79
Sea turtle bycatch in U.S. mid-atlantic gillnet gear: 

characteristics, magnitude, and opportunities for conservation 

Kimberly T. Murray

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, USA 

Introduction

Bycatch of sea turtles in commercial fishing gear is a conservation problem demanding 

innovative solutions for mitigation. From 1995-2006, fisheries observers in the Mid-Atlantic 

documented captures of loggerhead, green, Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback turtles in sink gillnet 

gear. To date, the characteristics, rates, and total magnitude of sea turtle bycatch in gillnet gear in 

the Mid-Atlantic region have not been examined in detail. Assessing both the distribution of turtle 

bycatch and factors influencing bycatch rates can help identify areas of elevated risk of bycatch 

1

, 2. In some cases fishing effort can be steered away from these bycatch “hotspots”, so that 

fishing effort can continue while minimizing the potential for turtle bycatch 3

. Furthermore, 

understanding fishing gear characteristics that influence bycatch or bycatch rates can help lead to 

gear modifications designed to reduce bycatch 4

. The purposes of this paper are to: (a) describe 

characteristics of observed sea turtle bycatch in sink gillnet gear; (b) evaluate environmental 

variables and fishing practices correlated with bycatch rates of loggerhead sea turtles; and (c) 

estimate and report the total average annual loggerhead bycatch in U.S. Mid-Atlantic sink gillnet 

fisheries. 

Methods

Data collected by fisheries observers were used to characterize sea turtle bycatch in sink gillnet 

gear, including the temporal and spatial distribution, fishing characteristics, species composition, 

and sizes of turtles captured. In addition, these data were used to develop a Generalized Additive 

Model (GAM) to evaluate and predict bycatch rates (turtles/ton fish landed) of loggerheads. A 

modeling approach could not be taken to estimate bycatch rates of other turtle species (Kemp’s 

ridley, green, leatherback, and unidentified) due to the relatively low number of observations. 

Estimated bycatch rates were then applied to commercial gillnet landings over the same time 

period to estimate total bycatch of loggerheads. 

Results

Bycatch characteristics 

From 1995-2006, fisheries observers reported a total of 41 loggerhead, 5 green, 5 leatherback, 8 

Kemp’s ridley, and 13 unidentified turtles incidentally caught in gillnet gear. Loggerhead 

captures occurred from south of Cape Cod (41° N) to North Carolina (34° N) in all months except 

January, in depths ranging between 1.8 and 76.8 m (mean = 28.0 m), and in surface water 

temperatures (SSTs) ranging between 8.6 and 27.8°C (mean = 17.2°C). Bycatch of green and 

Kemp’s ridley turtles occurred south of 36°N from March through December in waters 2-38 m 

deep, in SSTs between 12.2 and 26.9°C. Bycatch of leatherbacks occurred north of 39°N from 

July to December, in waters 18-68 m deep and at SSTs between 12.2 and 21.1°C. Mesh sizes of 

nets capturing loggerheads ranged between 7.6 and 30.5 cm, with most (n = 25) of the observed 

captures in 30.5 cm nets targeting monkfish. Bycatches of other turtle species occurred in nets 

having mesh sizes between 3.3 and 30.5 cm.

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 80
 

Sizes (curved carapace length [CCL] from notch to tip) of the observed loggerheads ranged 

between 52 and 101 cm (n = 12 turtles, mean = 65.3 cm). Sizes of the observed Kemp’s ridleys 

ranged between ~28 and 44cm, and the size range of observed green turtles was between ~28 and 

38cm. Observers did not measure any of the observed leatherbacks. Turtles were captured alive 

(52%), dead (40%), and in unknown condition (8%) when observers could not adequately see the 

turtle. 

 

Estimated Rates and Magnitude of Bycatch 

Bycatch rates of loggerheads were correlated with latitude, sea surface temperature (SST) and 

mesh size. Higher bycatch rates occurred in southerly latitudes, and increased with increases in 

SST and mesh size. Predicted bycatch rates on commercial gillnet trips ranged between 0.0 and 

5.2 loggerheads/ton landed. From 1995-2006, the average annual bycatch estimate of loggerheads 

was 350 turtles (C.V.= 0.20, 95% CI over the 12-year period: 234-504). 

Discussion

This study highlights areas and mesh sizes with elevated risk for loggerhead bycatch in U.S. MidAtlantic gillnet fisheries. The combination of fishing in low latitudes, in warm SST, with large 

mesh had the largest effect on estimated bycatch rates. The largest bycatch reduction gains could 

potentially be achieved in the southern Mid-Atlantic below 38°N, in large (>17.8 cm) and 

medium (>=14 cm and <=17.8 cm) mesh gillnets. Some turtle conservation measures are already 

in place in the southern Mid-Atlantic. Large-mesh gillnet fishing has been prohibited since 2001 

through a series of rolling closures designed to reduce bycatch of sea turtles. These rolling 

closures, however, did not eliminate loggerhead bycatch. During 2002-2006, when rolling 

closures were in place on an annual basis, more than half of the estimated bycatch occurred in 

mesh smaller than 17.8 cm south of 38°N, and in mesh larger than 17.8 cm north of 38°N. The 

closures do not encompass mesh sizes smaller than 17.8 cm, nor areas north of 38°N. The current 

rolling closures are likely reducing the probability that loggerheads are captured south of 38°N in 

large-mesh gear because they are placed in areas that historically had high bycatch rates. 

However, other opportunities to reduce bycatch exist in smaller mesh gear, and north of the 

northern most boundary of the current rolling closure. 

"For more information, see 

http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v8/n3/p211-224/"

Notes: 

1. Sims, M, Cox T, Lewison R. 2008. Modeling spatial patterns in fisheries bycatch: improving bycatch 

maps to aid fisheries management. Ecol. App. 18(3): 649-661. 

2. Gardner, B, Sullivan PJ, Morreale SJ, Epperly SP. 2008. Spatial and temporal statistical analysis of 

bycatch data: patterns of sea turtle bycatch in the North Atlantic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci 65: 2461-2470. 

3. Howell EA, Kobayashi DR, Parker DM, Balazs GH, Polovina JJ. 2008. TurtleWatch: A tool to aid in 

the bycatch reduction of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Hawaii-based longline fishery. Endang. 

Species Res. 5: 267-278. 

4. Haas, H, LaCasella E, LeRoux R, Milliken H, Hayward B. 2008. Characteristics of sea turtles 

incidentally captured in the U.S. Atlantic sea scallop fishery. Fish. Res. 93:289-295. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 81
The evolution of a discard policy in Europe 

Lisa Borges 

 European Commission, Directorate General for Maritime Affairs & Fisheries, Belgium 

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are Lisa Borges’ personal opinions and do 

not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission 

Introduction

The European Commission (EC), as the executive body of the European Union, has the mandate 

of proposing future policies in fisheries management. In European waters the practice of 

discarding part of the catch at sea is presently legal (with one exception described below), and in 

some circumstances compulsory. Discards due to management measures such as minimum 

landing size, TAC limitations and/or quota limitations and bycatch restrictions are a common 

occurrence in European waters. Nevertheless, low or no economic value is the main cause of 

discards, and is where highgrading, i.e. discarding smaller size specimens to maximize profit, is a 

particular case. 

Discards have become more important in the public eye in Europe with increasing public 

awareness to ocean conservation, with the intensification of overexploitation of fisheries 

resources, and, recently, with the public acknowledgement by the fishing industry of widespread 

discarding of commercial species. 

The EC, in line with the increase public awareness, has proposed measures to, if not banned 

altogether, to at least reduce discards significantly. Since 2006, specific EC initiatives were taken 

to consult stakeholders in order to shape a future discard policy. The EC discard policy goals 

were published in a communication1

, after which a consultation paper, that included several 

implementation options, was released 2

. 

At the same time, scientific data collected by observers on board was analyzed with the specific 

objective to identify and prioritize European fisheries with high discards3

, to determine baseline 

discard levels and to finally determine feasible discard reduction targets4

. In 2008, an EC 

implementation proposal5

 that followed was based on a progressive reduction of discards by 

fishery, where specific discard reduction targets were set over a period of time. The specific 

technical measures to be implemented were left open to the industry to devise them. The idea 

behind was that, as long as the average reduction target was reached, fishermen were free to try 

different options, with the aim of increasing industry responsibility and acceptability of the 

regulation. 

The issues

At the end of 2008, an international incident raised further public awareness on discards. A UK 

vessel was caught on camera discarding five tones of commercial size fish (mainly saithe), 

immediately after leaving Norwegian waters, where discarding is prohibit. The video was 

broadcasted in many European countries causing a widespread public demand for a discard ban. 

This incident, allied to the slow pace of implementation of the fishery approach described above, 

considering the many different fisheries in Europe and the long timeline for the discard reduction 

targets to be reached, increased significantly the political pressure for the EC to deal quickly with 

discards. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 82
Furthermore, at the same time, some Member States argued for increases in Total Allowable 

Catches (TACs) in order to decrease discards of commercially size species. This was the reaction 

of national administrations and industry to an increase of discards of commercial size fish of an 

emblematic European stock: North Sea cod. Industry reports, backed up by scientific data from 

observers on board, showed a marked increase in catches of cod above minimum landing size. 

This increase has since been attributed to an abundant 2005 year class. North Sea cod is caught in 

a mixed cod-haddock-whiting fishery, highly dependent on incoming cod year classes, with the 

majority of landing (>80%) of juvenile cod aged 1-3. The 2005 year class has now been heavily 

exploited, with little benefit to the stock, which remains below Blim. 

Results/Discussion

The issues described above have resulted in a rethink of the European discard policy. The 

approach taken now is the prohibition of highgrading in the North Sea and Skagerrak in 2009, to 

be extended to all European fisheries from 2010, with the long term objective of a total discard 

ban. However, questions have been raised if the highgrading ban is being implemented, due to the 

abandonment of the fisheries approach that may reduce industry acceptability and, at the same 

time, to the planned reduction of fisheries control costs by limiting control at land. 

The events mentioned previously highlighted, on the other hand, the difficulty of protecting a 

unique strong year class of stocks under severe fishing pressure and in poor state. Is the 

highgrading ban the solution for saving a year class? Or should it be complemented by other 

measures (effort reductions, technical measures)? The answer is of particular importance 

considering that two other cod stocks (western and eastern Baltic Sea) are presently experience 

high recruitment but its fisheries are largely based on recruiting year classes, and thus there is a 

window of opportunity to safeguard stock recovery. 

The case of the Northeast Arctic cod may shed some light. In 1973-74 the largest ever recorded 

year class recruited to the fishery. A prohibition to discard cod was established in 1977. Although 

this measure was adopted too late to save the 1970 year class, in combination with low TACs, 

additional technical measures and good enforcement, it prevented the 1983 year class to be 

overexploited6

. By the mid 90's the stock had recovered and it is presently extremely abundant. 

However, the similarities between Northeast Arctic cod stock and the stocks in the North and 

Baltic Sea are small, particularly in two fundamental aspects: the number of species caught in the 

fishery and the level of control. The mixed species nature of fisheries and low enforcement in 

Europe cast some doubt to the efficiency of a highgrading ban to reverse recruitment overfishing. 

Nevertheless, this measure applied to the single species cod fishery in the Baltic and associated to 

improvements in its exploitation pattern and lower fishing pressure, may be sufficient to 

safeguard the future of the Baltic cod stocks. 

Notes: 

1. Haas, H, LaCasella E, LeRoux R, Milliken H, Hayward B. 2008. Characteristics of sea turtles 

incidentally captured in the U.S. Atlantic sea scallop fishery. Fish. Res. 93:289-295. 

2. EC. 2007. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a policy 

to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries. COM(2007) 136 final. 8 pp. 

3. Unpublished manuscript. 2008 Commission non-paper on the implementation of the policy to reduce 

unwanted by-catch and eliminate discards in European fisheries. 12 pp. 

4. STECF. 2008. Report of the STECF Subgroup on Management of Resources (SGMOS) on the Working 

Group on Discards. Ispra, Italy. 3-7 December 2007. SEC(2008) [SEC number to be assigned] 

5. STECF. 2008. Report of the STECF Subgroup on Management of Resources (SGMOS) on Reduction of 

Discarding Practices. Ispra, Italy. 16-20 June 2008. SEC(2008) [SEC number to be assigned] 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 83
6. Nakken, O. (editor). 2008. Norwegian spring-spawning herring and Northeast Arctic cod. 100 years of 

research and management. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim. 177p. 

The Peruvian Anchovy Fishery Observer Program and its role in 

monitoring interactions with top predators 

Francis Van Oordt 

Instituto del Mar del Perú – IMARPE 

 Callao, Perú 

The Peruvian Anchovy Engraulis ringens is the key species in the Peruvian Upwelling 

Ecosystem, and plays important roles both as predator and prey to different components of the 

system 1. Peruvian Anchovy is a small pelagic fish, with short-life span and which congregates in 

large schools becoming an important prey item for predators and target for fisheries as well, 

making this fishery the largest one in the world, reaching in the last years volumes of six million 

tons caught annually. 

Today, the Peruvian Industrial Purse Seine Fishery is comprised of around one thousand vessels, 

of which about 50% are steel haul vessels, while the rest are wood hauls. Steel vessels catch by 

large most of the anchovy in this fishery, reaching about 80% of the total catch in Peru. This 

important fishery has suffered several strong impacts in the last decades, due to intense 

overfishing in the 70’s and an extraordinary El Niño 82-83 event, that collapsed the fish stocks, 

and afterwards although fishing has been controlled, warm events have seriously affected it 2,3. 

The purse seine fleet has increased both in the number of vessels and in search capabilities in the 

last years. Although most of the vessels are equipped with echosounders, and other fraction with 

sonars as well, they often use seabirds and radio communication to detect fishing areas. The fleet 

operates within 80 nautical miles from the coast, focusing its activities around the shelf break, 

and along the whole Peruvian coast. 

The LOOP comprises 20 to 25 observers that allocated themselves on industrial vessels, and have 

gathered data on about three thousand to five thousand fishing sets per year. Because most of the 

effort is concentrated in the northern-central area, most of the observers are allocated here. This 

way the program records real time information on fishing effort and fishing areas. The observers 

also collect an important amount of data from the catch each set. Sampling anchovies they 

register size structure of the catch, producing important information to assess recruitment, and 

close fisheries in case of high juvenile presence. Also when requested, observers could sample 

gonads from anchovies for further reproductive assessments at headquarters. Observers are 

equipped with basic tools to fulfill theirs tasks such as ictiometer, plastic buckets, pocket springs 

balances, radio-telephone for quick communication. By-catch of other commercial or noncommercial species, including large vertebrates such as protected species, is also an important 

component recorded by the LOOP. 

This fishery has gone through several adaptation in management since it last collapse in the 70`s. 

Today we can account for spatial bans that aim to protect this species and other resources close to 

shore, forbidding all industrial fishing within the 5 nm from the shore. Fishery closures were 

established for spawning seasons and also closed areas when high incidence of juveniles occurred 

in the catches. Today, a system of individual quotas has been established for the Peruvian 

Anchovy fishery and will be monitored closely, expecting results in the fore coming months. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 84
Satellite vessel monitoring systems have also been implemented and enforcement is in progress 

using this tool, facing with a particular issues that at out of the present work. 

LOOP plays an important role in monitoring this fishery, including both the target species and 

other species involved in it. Therefore, observers are constantly trained due to new staff included 

in the program, and also to improve data quality and continuously standardize the collected data. 

In this process, it has become an important role of the observers to monitor interactions with top 

predators (small cetaceans, seabirds, and also sea turtles). Observers register interaction with this 

species, recording the presence or occurrence of individual during fishing activities, either present 

or interfering with the fishing set or haul. Also, they would record any occurrence of mortality of 

this species as a result of the fishery. It is clear now that several species of gulls are common 

during fishing activities, as well as guano seabirds, endemic to the Humboldt Current. Also an 

important species present during fishing operations is the South American Sea Lion, which occur 

mostly while the fish is being hauled to the vessel, according to observers and fishermen. The 

program has reported the presence of Waved Albatrosses during fishing operations, which is a 

new to this fishery. This species is under significant pressure apparently from habitat degradation 

and also interaction with fisheries, so this new reports are an important warning of potential 

interactions. This unique data also contains information on fish school features, which allow us to 

assess foraging dolphins’ behavior, to better understand foraging patterns of this group of 

mammals along the Peruvian Coast. 

The Logbook and Onboard Observer Program is an important tool used in the adaptative 

management of the Peruvian Anchovy Fishery and is constantly updating and improving its 

methods both in data collection and analysis4

. Although some biases should be dealt with, such as 

coverage and vessel selection, the quality and the amount of data provided by LOOP is of utmost 

importance for management. 

Notes: 

1. Tsukayama, I. 1983. Recursos pelágicos y sus pesquerías en el Perú. Rev. Com. Perm. Pacífico Sur. 

13:25-63. 

2. . Ñiquen, M.; M. Bouchon; S. Cahuin; & J. Valdez. 1999. Efectos del fenómeno del Niño 1997-98 sobre 

los principales recursos pelágicos en la Costa Peruana. Rev. Peruana de Biología “El Niño 1997-98 y su 

impacto sobre los ecosistemas marino y terrestre” (Vol. Extraordinario). Univ. Nac. Mayor San Marcos: 

85-96. 

3. Ñiquen, M.; M. Espino, M. Bouchon, 2000. Análisis de la población de anchoveta durante el periodo 

1961-1999. Bol. IMARPE. Vol. 19 No1 y 2: 103-108. 

4. Freon, P; S. Bertrand; M. Bouchon; M. Ñiquen. 2008. Adaptive management in pelagic fisheries. Fact 

Sheet 9. Institute de Recherche pour le Developpement (IRD) and Instituto del Mar del Perú (IMARPE). 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 85
Fisheries observers and bycatch reduction research 

Lee Benaka1 and Henry Milliken2

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S.A.1

 National Marine Fisheries Service, Wood Hole, Massachusetts, U.S.A.2

Introduction

Fisheries observers are critical partners in successful bycatch reduction engineering research. 

This presentation describes the role of observers in two projects funded by NMFS’s Bycatch 

Reduction Engineering Program (BREP). The BREP was established by Section 316 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended through January 12, 

2007. The mission of the BREP is to develop technological solutions and investigate changes in 

fishing practices designed to minimize bycatch of fish (including sponges and deep sea and 

shallow, tropical corals) and protected species (including marine mammals, seabirds, and sea 

turtles) as well as minimize bycatch injury and mortality (including post-release injury and 

mortality). The BREP awarded approximately $1.4M in FY09 for internal NMFS projects to 

fulfill the BREP’s mission. BREP projects for FY08 are described in the first BREP Report to 

Congress (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/docs/brep_report_final.pdf) 

Methods

Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline Bluefin Tuna Mitigation Research 

Research was conducted in 2008 by the Engineering and Harvesting Branch of NMFS’s 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), Mississippi Laboratories, to evaluate the efficacy of 

a new 16/0 “weak” circle hook design in reducing the bycatch of bluefin tuna in the Gulf of 

Mexico yellowfin tuna fishery. All vessels participating in the experiment carried NOAA-trained 

observers who were well-versed in the experimental design. Each observer was trained in: 

• Safety; 

• Fish, marine mammal, and seabird identifications; 

• Data collections; and 

• The Operation of a pelagic longline fishing vessel. 

Observers collected data as described by the SEFSC Pelagic Longline Observer Program. 

Observers recorded: 

• Time and location of each section of gear as it was deployed and retrieved; 

• Sea surface temperature; and 

• Section number, treatment (hook model), time on deck, length, and species for each 

animal captured. 

Observers also applied a carcass tag to each fish kept to match the dressed weight of the fish 

during unloading at the dock to the particular data collected on that animal at sea. 

Gear Modifications to Reduce Harbor Porpoise Interactions in Commercial Gillnet 

Fisheries

Research is being conducted by NMFS’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) to 

determine and document conservation benefits for reducing harbor porpoise bycatch resulting 

from differing hanging ratios (0.5 vs. 0.33) in the sink gillnet fishery in the area south of the Cape 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 86
 

Cod South management area. All hauls during this experiment are to be observed by a trained 

data collector or NMFS-certified Observer on NMFS data sheets, recording: 

• Catch of targeted species as well as harbor porpoise and other bycatch; 

• Length frequencies of the targeted catch 

Left: Lee Benaka, NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

Right: Alpha A. Bangura, Deputy Director of 

Fisheries Ministry of Fisheries and Marine 

Resources, Sierra Leone 

• All gear and haul characteristics including 

time, temperature, location, soak duration, 

and depth will be recorded as per standard 

NEFSC protocols. 

In addition, the observer provider will meet with 

the observers between trips to help address any 

unforeseen sampling issues and to ensure that the 

goals of the project are being met. 

Results/Discussion

Data collected by observers are very important to 

the success of bycatch reduction engineering 

research. NMFS’s Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

requested funds for 2011-2015 to cover the 

necessary observer monitoring for projects that 

would be carried out under a fully funded BREP. 

The Office of Sustainable Fisheries will continue 

to ensure that observer resources related to 

bycatch reduction engineering research are 

carefully considered in NMFS’s long-term 

planning and budgeting efforts. 

Fisheries observer programme in Sierra Leone and its 

implications on fisheries management 

Alpha A. Bangura 

 Deputy Director of Fisheries Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources 

 Freetown 

 Republic of Sierra Leone 

Sierra Leone lies on the West Coast of Africa is bordered on the West, North and Northeast by 

the Republic of Guinea, Southeast by Liberia and Northwest by the Atlantic Ocean. The country 

is endowed with abundant marine resources in the form of coastline fishing of 500km and over 

200 species of fin fish and shell fish of which 80 species of scientific and economic importance 

are commonly encountered. The fishery sector provides food, employment and income. The 

Artisanal (small scale) fishery is important for the sustainable development of coastal 

communities and the overall fisheries contributes 9.4% to the GOP. 

The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources is the constitutionally mandated institution for 

the management and conservation of the fisheries and all living aquatic resources. In enforcing 

this constitutional mandate, it established and maintains Fisheries Observer program responsible 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 87
for the collection of fisheries data from industrial vessels and major dockside communities. The 

Observers and dockside workers collect data on fishing events such as fishing area, fishing time, 

total catch, species combination etc. 

Data collected is analyzed to provide vital information needed for making scientifically informed 

decisions for the conservation and management of the fisheries resources. Such management 

decisions include the effort control measure (access limitation), input control, (mesh size), area 

limitation (Insure Exclusion Zone), import/export obligation, biological control, MCS etc. 

Enforcement of fisheries law is carried out by the Maritime Wing (MW) of the Republic of Sierra 

Leone Armed Forces which is poorly resourced in terms of patrol boats/vessels, logistics and 

adequate finding. 

Notwithstanding the usefulness and importance of MCS activities, the observer program in Sierra 

Leone is faced with institutional weaknesses such as poor funding to support effective fisheries 

observer program, shortage of trained observers, poor working conditions, lack of logistics and 

centralized infrastructural base (fish harbor) to provide dockside services. It is therefore 

recommended that the observer program be adequately supported in terms of proper employment 

and attractive conditions of service for observers, appropriate training, provision of necessary 

logistics and adequate funding from government, bilateral and multilateral donors/institutions. 

Lastly, the Maritime Wing (navy) which ensures enforcement and compliance be adequately 

provided with appropriate patrol crafts/ boats, accessories and training. 

Estimating bycatch and discards from observer data in tropical 

tuna purse seine fisheries: the case study of silky shark ( 

Carcharhinus falciformis) in the Indian Ocean tuna purse seine 

fishery 

Monin J. Amandè 1,2., P. Chavance 1, E. Chassot 1, 

E. Walker 1, N. Bez 1, D. Gaërtner 1 and K. N’Da 2

1 Centre of Fishery Research - IRD - UMR EME 212 (Sète, France) 

2

 University of Abobo-Adjamé (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) 

Data collected through 20 observer fishing trips were used to quantify the number of silky sharks 

taken as bycatch by the French tuna purse seine fishery of the Western Indian Ocean. 1,385 

immature silky sharks of which 85% was discarded at sea and 15% retained aboard, were 

observed as bycatch during 685 fishing sets observed from October 2005 to April 2008. Zeroinflated negative binomial regression models fitted with Bayesian methods were used to explain 

silky shark bycatch as a function of fishing mode (free vs. fishing aggregating device-associated 

(FAD) schools), area, and season. Model results showed that silky sharks occurred in 24% of the 

fishing sets with an expected number of sharks per set estimated to be 2.02 (Sd = 6.13). The 

probability of added zeros is expressed as a logistic function of the fishing mode and the quarter, 

however the count regression feet better without covariates. FAD was shown to have a strong 

positive affect on the number of silky sharks caught, an expected value of 5.2 sharks being taken 

in FAD-associated schools versus 0.5 shark in free schools. There were significant differences in 

silky shark bycatch between seasons due to their probably of presence with higher bycatch than 

average in July-September. Results are discussed within the context of the ecosystem approach to 

fisheries for the analysis of ecosystem effects of fishing. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 88
 

Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Comment/Question 

Keith Davis 

Association for Professional Observers 

USA

My question is for Mr. Bangura from Sierra 

Leone. With the limited resources that you 

have to provide support to observers, in 

regards to enforcing regulations and backing 

up observers when they do their job 

correctly- Do you have concerns for the 

overall quality of the data as a whole that is 

being collected, taking into consideration 

that some observers may be influenced or 

harassed out at sea and be influenced not to 

do their job correctly because you may not 

have the support to provide to them to back 

them up in the field? 

Response 

Alpha A. Bangura 

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources 

Sierra Leone

The ministry or government is, of course, 

aware of the problems. I talked of 

inaccuracies and the type of data collected 

by observers. This can only be eliminated 

when government takes over the payment at 

provision of logistics and good conditions of 

service. So that will, more or less improve 

the quality of information that observers are 

collecting out there. 

Comment 

Keith Davis 

Association for Professional Observers

USA 

I think it would be advisable to have some 

international support for countries such as 

yours. 

Response

Alpha A. Bangura 

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources 

Sierra Leone 

In fact, if you look at the recommendations 

made, the second to the last slide was 

talking of bilateral, multilateral cooperation 

in supporting observer programs. 

Definitely, we don’t have the resources and 

we don’t have the logistics. Very soon 

we’re going to get the support of the U.S. 

government to train observers, but this is a 

one time offer. There is a need for sustained 

support for some time for us to get started 

on a very sound footing. You are, more or 

less, correct. We’re looking forward to any 

support that would, more or less, help us 

improve our data collection. 

Comment/Question 

Steve Kennelly 

NSW Department of Primary Industries 

Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre 

Australia

My question is to Lisa Borges, and perhaps 

to Kjell Nedreaas from Norway, about the 

difference in the discarding policies between 

European Union countries and Norway. 

How much of this can be seen as being due 

to almost the perfect situation in Norway 

where you have single species, highly 

selective gear and a discard band that sort of 

works there, because of the fact that they do 

have highly selective fishing gears and fairly 

minor specific fisheries. Although, even in 

some of their multi-species fisheries, they 

still get around some of the discard banding 

problems by using highly selective fishing 

tools. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 89
How much of the cause between the 

differences are due to that highly selective 

nature of their fisheries? 

Response 

Lisa Borges 

European Commission 

Belgium 

I would talk a little bit about the Norwegian 

system, and maybe the Norwegians in the 

room might disagree with me. I do think that 

the measures taken worked particularly in 

the stock I mentioned because of the monospecific fisheries. They really only catch 

Cod because they have high control. I had 

the chance to ask the Norwegian Coast 

Guard how many vessels they had just to 

control their fishery. For that fishery they 

had 17 patrol vessels. We don’t really have 

that level of control in Europe. 

Now, I do know that I like to be a little 

critical of the Norwegian System, and I 

know that fisheries in other parts of Norway 

don’t have as much control. Also, discard 

regulations are not as implemented as they 

could be on the stock I mentioned before, 

because the diversity of the fisheries is a 

little bit higher, and of course you have 

lower control. I do know that it works pretty 

well in Norway because there’s also a 

cultural compliance that does not exist in 

Europe. However, I think that Europe is 

diverse, and I keep on saying that diversity 

of species increases with latitude. Northern 

European countries are mono-specific 

fisheries in high control and high 

compliance, and Southern countries tend to 

more loosely follow the law. For lots of 

species, it is more difficult to have some of 

the measures implemented like a ban for 

example in the Baltic, at least in my work 

experiences. Your question about the 

technical measures was a good point, 

because they are trying to increase the mesh 

size. The Commission attempted this, and 

the fishermen did not receive it well, and 

changed their gears in a way that was 

absolutely no improvement in the fishing 

exploitation pattern of the fisheries. Now 

that we have this two year recruitment year 

class approaching the Commission discussed 

that there is no point of increasing mesh size 

because fishermen will go around it. 

Ideas for a solution to this are open to the 

floor or anyone with suggestions. I would 

like to see fishing effort reductions or area 

closures to go around the low control level 

and maybe to put a discard ban in place 

there. 

Comment 

Kjell Nedreaas 

Institute of Marine Research 

Norway 

Well, I should say that there are many things 

we would like to improve, including not 

only better documentation, but better 

sampling and so on. We are sometimes 

accused of not having that when it comes to 

our discard ban, due to the poor sampling 

and documentation we have. I am very much 

is favor of the system we have and I believe 

its working. There are fisheries where we 

are not that clever in enforcement and in 

control, ensuring everything goes as we 

want it to. But, this is another issue that we 

improve on. When I return home from this 

meeting, after receiving all the input I’ve 

received here, I will write a suggestion for a 

better sampling method of discards, even if 

we should not have any discards in Norway. 

Although it is forbidden, we would still like 

to document it better. We were/are applying 

some of these improvements in the North 

Sea in collaboration with the .E.U. In 2007 

Lisa was referring to discards of Cod in the 

North Sea. Of ten Cod that the E.U. Fleet 

caught, eight of them were discarded. In 

fishery biology, we are talking about two 

important concepts. The first is recruitment 

overfishing which deals with ensuring there 

are large enough spawning stocks, to 

produce new recruits. We can not 

compromise this, because we are then 

compromising natural laws. So, recruitment 

overfishing is something that we have to 

avoid. The other concept is growth 

overfishing, which is more up to managers. 

What kind of fishing pattern do we want and 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 90
how do we want to utilize that growth 

potential that nature serves up? This is up to 

managers. Finally, I would say that 

Norwegian discard ban is built on the 

following concepts. Its requirements to 

change fishing grounds, its temporary area 

closures, and here talking with all these 

observers we have in the audience. Most of 

you observer programs today work on 

following the fishery. But, those observers 

we have in Norway, which I can define as 

observers, they are employed in order to 

manage and monitor these temporal closure 

programs. This is an important task, and 

should be an important task for observers in 

the future. Its important to not only 

passively follow the fleet but more actively 

go in and collect data from closed areas, 

whether they are temporary or not. Then we 

have a U.S. ban on discards and a list of 

species we have a ban on. Also, we have a 

lot of special regulatory measures, at least 

selective gear technology with sorting grids, 

and mesh sizes. The eliminator trawl that we 

heard about yesterday is something that we 

would definitely look into more. 

Response 

Kjell Nedreaas 

Institute of Marine Research 

Norway 

I’m not sure I answered the last question 

properly. I was asked about whether Norway 

has a single species or mixed species 

fishery. In Norway we have a one species 

fishery, not mixed fisheries. Yes, the further 

North you come the more single species 

there may be. We are no dependent on a 

single species fishery to act. We use these 

sorting rates in addition to mesh size. For 

instance, in the Barents Sea, in the shrimp 

fishery we have four or five species that we 

catch together with shrimp. So, I would say 

lets try to find multispecies criteria which 

are possible in some instances. There is 

another method that we are following- we 

have strong regulations against by-catching 

unwanted endangered species. If we are 

dealing with a species that is not 

endangered, we take a more bio-economic 

approach to a solution. A Multispecies 

fishery is a bigger challenge, but it does not 

mean we should stop doing anything 

because of that. 

Response 

Lisa Borges 

European Commission 

Belgium

I think nothing should be a reason not to do 

something to protect stocks and to try to 

manage things and bring it back to normal 

and in good health. I think that a perspective 

that some of the countries might not have is 

that when you’re managing 27 countries 

with very difficult realities, there’s always a 

little bit of balance between a law that might 

apply to every country . The position of the 

Commission is always to say the law that 

applies to everyone, because everyone 

should be treated equally. 

I just wanted to highlight the fact that the 

common fisheries policy is now under 

review. We are doing a reform. We have a 

whole year of consultation with 

stakeholders. We will hope that anything 

that is considered now in the common 

fisheries policy is open to discussion. TACs 

efforts, ITQs, the regionalization of 

technical measures, funding and subsidies 

for the fishing fleets, anything is open to 

discussion, and maybe the new common 

fisheries policy will have something that 

could deal with those discards in a different 

fashion and different ways within the 

different regions 

Question/Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

My question is for Francis Van Oordt. You 

mentioned your program is voluntary 

coverage and collected a vast amount of data 

through that voluntary participation. My 

question is in regards to what you mentioned 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 91
about some of the issues you’re dealing with 

in estimate in mortality biases. What about 

your vessel selection? In a voluntary 

program you tend to get people who are for 

what you’re doing and you’re missing a 

segment. So in dealing with some of your 

biases, are you looking at vessel selection 

bias and how do you approach that? 

Response 

Francis Van Oordt 

Instituto Del Mar Del 

Peru 

Yes, I’m not sure if I mentioned it, but 80 

percent of the fleet are larger boats. Our 

observers would definitely choose the bigger 

more comfortable boats, or those boats that 

would take them. There is a bias there as 

well. We are trying to deal with that, it is 

being worked on. 

Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

 

I think in a couple of other presentations, I 

saw some of the same issues and it raised in 

my mind, some of the same questions 

dealing with vessel selection biases, and in 

terms of Kim’s presentation as well. Geared 

devices, relative to some of the things that 

Lee had mentioned, I wonder is you two are 

talking about some bycatch reduction gear 

for gill nets that would eliminate or reduce 

some of the turtle takes that you are seeing 

Question/Comment 

Pierre Meke 

Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Animal 

Industries 

Cameroon 

My question is for Kimberly on the issue of 

gill nets for monitoring the sea turtle 

bycatch. I recall in a fishery in Nigeria we 

tried to do an FAO project- we tried to put 

on TED’s, turtle excluder devices. However, 

when the boat left the port they had the TED 

on. When they were out at sea, they would 

take off the TED, and continued to fish 

without any device. The problem is that they 

would continue to catch turtles. In the case 

of the gill nets here, one of the solutions you 

suggested was to increase the mesh size. 

Maybe this is good, the small turtles can go 

through the nets, but what about the bigger 

ones? I believe in terms of policy 

implication, would you think that the best 

way may be to only bind the gill nets in that 

fishery? 

Response/Comment 

Kim Murray 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

Just a point of clarification, I was saying one 

thing that you could look at further was 

restricting that ban to mesh sizes less than 

seven inches. Most of the turtles that we 

were catching were less than 75 centimeters. 

But they wouldn’t be small enough to go 

through a five inch gill net mesh. But your 

point about whether or not a total ban would 

be an alternative option, I mean, ideally we 

want to allow the fishermen to continue their 

way of life and minimize that bycatch to the 

best that we can. 

The ESA does, prohibit the taking of turtles; 

however, there are exceptions that can be 

made to allow an acceptable level to be 

taken in the fishery so long as it doesn’t 

jeopardize the turtle population. So, if we 

can get a good assessment of what an 

allowable take level could be it might be 

possible to allow the fishery to continue 

fishing rather than a total ban. I think when 

the impact on the turtles is going to be 

extreme then you would have to consider a 

measure like that. Hopefully there would be 

alternative sources for the fishermen. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 92
Comment/ Question 

Vicki Cornish 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA 

This question is for Lee Benaka about the 

bycatch reduction engineering program. 

This appears to be a new program that was 

implemented, or at least established under 

the Magnuson Stevens Reauthorization Act. 

I’m wondering what Congress’s intent was 

behind implementing that program. How is 

it meant to expand the current cooperative 

research program that was focused on 

bycatch engineering, and reduction 

engineering? If Congress was really 

interested in pulling together an advanced 

effort on bycatch reduction, why wasn’t 

there any funds to really get that program 

going? What do you see as the future for the 

program, in light of these funding 

constraints? 

Response 

Lee Benaka 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Thanks, Vicki. That’s a great question and 

an issue that I’ve thought about a lot over 

the past few years. If you just look at the 

language in the Magnuson Reauthorization 

Act, it’s fairly vague. It says that the agency 

shall create a regionally based bycatch 

reduction engineering program but it doesn’t 

really say how much money it should be 

spending on it. It didn’t identify a specific 

authorization of funds for that program. 

When this language is being bandied around 

before the Magnuson Act was reauthorized, 

we did go through an exercise of 

determining what we call the 100 percent 

requirements for such a program. 

It went out to all the science centers and 

regional offices and ended up with estimates 

around the country of needing around 

$6,000,000.00 to $8,000,000.00 per year 

that would allow us to hire new people to do 

the gear research as well as funds to carry 

out the research. At some of our science 

centers and regions, we only have one 

person really who is dedicated to working 

on bycatch reduction engineering research. 

In other regions and science centers we do 

have more than one person. The best 

example is the southeast fishery science 

center with the Pascagoula lab that has a 

staff of five or six people who spend a lot of 

their time on the gear research. 

So, as you know, at NOAA fishery service 

the funding and planning is done on a five 

year cycle looking at several years in 

advance. So right now we’re getting into 

the fiscal year 12 to 16 planning process. 

Each year since the bycatch reduction 

engineering program was established, we’ve 

put in proposals for the 100 percent funding. 

For various reasons, it hasn’t been funded to 

that level. We did get an increase for fiscal 

year 2009 of around $500,000.00. For fiscal 

year 10 we’re looking at ways to take money 

that’s already planned for the budget, some 

increases, and figure out ways that our 

program can link into it. For example, there 

is some additional money for annual catch 

limit implementation. 

So we’re looking at ways, trying to identify 

fisheries where bycatch might prevent a 

fishery from having as high an annual catch 

limit as possible. If there’s a bycatch gear 

solution that would allow the annual catch 

limit to be higher than we’re going to make 

a case that some of that money should be 

spent on bycatch research. Now the big 

buzz word in the NOAA Fishery Service 

long term planning and budgeting is catch 

shares. A lot of resources are being devoted 

and are planning to be devoted to 

implementing new catch share programs. 

So that’ll probably be another effort in the 

future is to figure out how bycatch reduction 

will relate to catch share programs. 

There is talk of catch share programs 

targeted at bycatch catch shares for 

particular fisheries, so that might be another 

angle. But for 12 to 16 we’re still going to 

put in another full request. As far as I can 

tell, whether it’s a stand alone request or 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 93
whether it’s lumped in with a bunch of other 

stuff, it’s hard to say. There might be a 

thought among the budget folks as you go 

up higher through NOAA. That Magnuson 

Reauthorization was 2006. It’s old history. 

We’re doing new things now, and the time is 

gone. But, we’re going to keep trying to 

make the case that there’s a program that 

was established that’s not fully funded, and 

it’s important to get full funding for it. 

Comment/Question 

Vicki Cornish 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA 

Is that 100 percent program requirement that 

you solicited from your various regions, is 

that available to the public? 

Response 

Lee Benaka 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

I’m not sure if it is. I can provide at least 

the summary of it. Feel free to contact me. 

I think there’s reference to it in the annual 

report to Congress, or at the least the process 

that was gone through. But if anyone’s 

interested in more details about that let me 

know and I can get back to you. Thanks. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 94
Panel Session 4: 

How can fishery monitoring information be used to ensure 

compliance with fisheries regulations? 

Moderator: Mark Showell, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada 

Speakers 

Sarah Wetmore –USA 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program: Facing challenges in a changing program. 

Joe Arceneaux –USA 

An introduction of the IATTC Tuna Transshipment Observer Program (are we looking at a real solution to 

a worldwide problem?) 

Greg Workman –Canada 

The accuracy of yellow eye rockfish catch estimates from British Columbia groundfish integration project. 

Garland Walker –USA 

Observers and the enforcement process. 

Nathan Lagerway –USA 

Enforcing observer victim crime. 

Todd Dubois –USA 

Law enforcement concerns in international observer programs. 

Jann Martinsohn – Italy 

Towards the integration of new technologies based on molecular biology, genetics, chemistry and 

forensics into a European framework for fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance. 

Introduction to the session 

Panel session four was the first "Enforcement Panel" prepared at these series of conferences. 

Session 4 Panel members hail from the United States, Canada and the Europe and discussed 

fisheries compliance, enforcement and how it improves the accuracy of landings statistical 

systems. Enforcement is essential to combating, reducing and eliminating IUU fishing, and also 

provides protection and support of fisheries observers. 

Enforcement is an essential aspect of fisheries monitoring worldwide, and here in this forum, we 

are set to have panelists present and discuss important issues that directly relate to fisheries 

compliance and observer programs worldwide. What technological advancements will aid 

enforcement efforts in the future? What challenges are being faced by enforcement officials and 

observers, and what international issues are observers and enforcement officials running into, and 

how is enforcement essential for data collection accuracy improvement? 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 95
 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program: Facing challenges in a 

changing program 

Sarah Wetmore 

National Marine Fisheries Service, USA 

The Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP), traditionally a science-based program, over 

the past several years has expanded to include an in-season quota monitoring data collection 

component. This transition, along with development of an Industry Funded Scallop Observer 

program, has had significant impacts on Northeast Fisheries Observers, and the program in 

general. Investigation into several years of associated observer data and observer performance 

describe the influences of regulatory and program complexities and their affects on training, 

retention, data quality, and overall achievement of program goals. 

An introduction of the IATTC Tuna Transshipment Observer 

Program 

(Are we looking at a real solution to a worldwide problem?) 

Stuart Arceneaux 

 NOAA Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Region, USA 

In June 2008 at the 78th meeting of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) a 

resolution was passed to establish a program to monitor transshipment activities. Resolution C08-02 Resolution on Establishing A Program For Transshipments By Large-Scale Fishing 

Vessels. This resolution replaces the earlier C-06-04The resolution comes into force on January 

1st, 2009 and applies to all carrier vessels of each IATTC party and cooperating non-party that 

transship at sea. The formative concerns are outlined in the preamble, included below. 

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC): 

 

Taking account of the need to combat illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing activities 

because they undermine the effectiveness of the conservation and management measured already 

adopted by the IATTC; 

Expressing grave concern that organized tuna laundering operations have been conducted, and a 

significant amount of catches by IUU tuna longline fishing vessels have been transshipped under 

the name of duly licensed vessel; 

In view therefore of the need to ensure the monitoring of the transshipment activities by largescale longline vessels in the Convention Area, including the control of their landings; 

The IATTC transshipment observer program is based on the Regional Observer Program (ROP) 

of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The Pacific 

Islands Regional Observer Program of NOAA Fisheries Service in Honolulu, Hawaii hosted the 

training. Using ICCAT’s pre-existing ROP as the model for the IATTC’s program (and the 

IOTC), is a step towards implementing a consistent standard. Transshipment observers would be 

able to be deployed wherever the need in whichever oceanic region. MRAG accessed a pool of 

trained observers with experience in two important areas. One, they had experience identifying 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 96
tunas caught in pelagic longline operations. Two, the observers had some basic familiarity with 

certain Asian cultural issues. The PIRO observer training staff had access to two subject matter 

experts in the area of tuna transshipment, Ebol Rojas and Ethan Browne. 

Independent estimation of yelloweye rockfish catch from 

electronic monitoring data1

*Greg Workman, Rick Stanley, Norm Olsen, Andrew Fedoruk 

Department Fisheries and Oceans, Canada 

The Canadian Groundfish Integration Pilot Project (CGIPP) is an industry led initiative that 

began in 2006. The intent of the program is to rationalize five separate hook and line or trap 

fishing sectors. Prior to rationalization by-catch in one single-species or multi-species fishery 

was often the target of another. This resulted in unaccounted for, under reported or unreported 

catch or discard mortality. These non-target catches were essentially unknown making it difficult 

to manage individual species amongst sectors. 

Two key elements of the project were to 1) develop a monitoring system that provided accurate 

estimates of all retained and discarded catch and 2) implement Individual Vessel Quotas (IVQ), 

wherein each vessel has access to a fixed portion of the annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for 

a given species. The Monitoring system comprises a 100 % fisher logbook (FL) program 

requiring vessel masters to maintain a log of piece count s by set by species for both discarded 

and retained catch, a 100% dockside monitoring program (DMP), where each vessel is met when 

offloading and their catches enumerated, and a 100% electronic monitoring (EM) or at sea 

observer monitoring (ASOP) program. 

Under the CGIPP fisher’s are also required to land 100% of their rockfish catch. Rockfish are 

caught by all hook and line sectors, as directed or incidental catch, and have a near 100 % 

mortality rate associated with capture due to barotraumas. Yelloweye rockfish are easily 

identified on video, high value, at low levels of abundance and are a species of concern to the 

Committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) therefore validating the 

catch of this species is of significant interest to both industry and resource managers. 

Sector

Fisher logs DMP %Difference

Halibut (Outside) 39,880 39,988 0.3%

Halibut/Sablefish (Outside) 10,411 10,128 -2.7%

Lingcod (Outside) 2,008 2,056 2.4%

Rockfish (Inside) 554 519 -6.4%

Rockfish (Outside) 14,159 14,063 -0.7%

Sablefish (Outside) 292 304 4.1%

Dogfish (Inside) 1,581 1,563 -1.1%

Dogfish (Outside) 3,499 3,531 0.9%

Total (Outside) 70,249 70,070 -0.3%

Total (Inside) 2,135 2,082 -2.5%

Total (Coastwide) 72,384 72,152 -0.3%

Total catch in pieces

Table 1. Total catch of yelloweye rockfish in pieces by sector as recorded in fisher 

logs and DMP FY08/09 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 97
Several audits are performed to evaluate the veracity of the fisher’s logbooks, first the DMP piece 

counts are compared to fisher’s reported retained catch, second 10 % of the video footage (VF) 

from each trip is reviewed and the results compared to reported event or set by set information in 

the FL and thirdly the FL is compared to sensor log of GPS locations and times for specific 

events. As long as there is no more than a 5% difference in piece count for the first two audits the 

Fisher log (FL) will be accepted as the official trip record, if there is a greater than 5 % difference 

addition video may be reviewed or the skipper may be asked to carry an observer. 

In Table 1, note that the greatest difference between FL and DMP is a little more than 6%, in 

general there is good correspondence between these two sources of catch information. Here we 

derive a third estimate from the random review of video footage (VF). Because video is collected 

at the time of capture it cannot be corrupted by misreporting or discards and can be used to 

produce an unbiased independent estimate of total catch, in doing so we can validate fisher’s 

retention of Yelloweye rockfish. We use standard stratified sampling estimators2 to extrapolate 

the 10% random sample of events to total catch across sectors by treating each gear sector as a 

stratum and each event within a stratum as an observation. For any combination of strata the 

stratified mean is the weighted sum of the individual stratum mean estimators. The estimator of 

the stratified total is the product of the stratified mean and the total number of events. We then 

bootstrap with replacement, N=1000, to generate a 95% confidence interval around the estimate 

of catch. 

Sector

VF Lower 95% 

CI

Upper 95% 

CI

Fisher 

logs

DMP % 

Difference

Halibut (Outside) 34,547 27,704 42,043 39,880 39,988 ‐13.4%

Halibut/Sablefish (Outside) 11,144 7,153 15,596 10,411 10,128 7.0%

Lingcod (Outside) 2,310 1,810 2,858 2,008 2,056 15.0%

Rockfish (Inside) 536 335 772 554 519 ‐3.2%

Rockfish (Outside) 16,991 12,120 22,894 14,159 14,063 20.0%

Sablefish (Outside) 359 31 1,109 292 304 22.9%

Dogfish (Inside) 1,282 908 1,695 1,581 1,563 ‐18.9%

Dogfish (Outside) 4,496 2,380 7,430 3,499 3,531 28.5%

Outside 69,847 51,198 91,930 70,249 70,070 ‐0.6%

Inside 1,819 1,243 2,467 2,135 2,082 ‐14.8%

Coastwide 71,666 52,440 94,398 72,384 72,152 ‐1.0%

Total piece counts

Table 2. Comparison of VF-estimate, FL and DMP piece count by sector, Region and 

Coastwide FY08/09 

In Table 2 we compare the estimates derived from video extrapolation (VF) with both dockside 

monitoring (DMP) and Fisher Log estimates of total Yelloweye rockfish catch. The percent 

difference shown is the difference between the VF estimate and the Fisher log, differences range 

from -18.9% to +28.5%. While these differences appear large relative to the proscribed 5% 

tolerance on variation from counts the actual Fisher log estimate always falls within the 95% CI 

of the extrapolated VF estimate of Yelloweye catch and overall coast wide and across sectors 

there is no significant difference between the Fisher log count and estimates derived from the 

video review (-1%). Agreement between Video estimates, fisher log and DMP estimates indicate 

there is negligible unreported discarding or dumping of this species in these fisheries. 

Furthermore this review of the CGIPP catch monitoring program indicates that it is providing 

sufficiently accurate total catch estimates of Yelloweye rockfish for manager to feel certain that 

quotas are not being exceeded. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 98
Notes: 

1. This presentation summarizes work published as: Stanley R.D., N. Olsen and A. Fedoruk. 2009. 

Independent Validation of the Accuracy of Yelloweye Rockfish Catch Estimates from the Canadian 

Groundfish Integration Pilot Project. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and 

Ecosystem Science 1:354–362 

2. Scheaffer, R.L., W. Mendenhall, and L. Ott. 1979. Elementary survey sampling, 2nd edition. Duxbury 

Press. Belmont, California. 

The observer’s role has both a scientific and enforcement 

function 

Garland Walker 

Attorney, NOAA General Counsel for Law Enforcement, USA 

I would like to focus on three topics:1 the evolution that I have witnessed regarding the way that 

observers in Alaska are perceived by the Agency and by the monitored fleets;2

 the current 

cooperation between the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (NPGOP), Enforcement 

and General Counsel, and;3

 the latest issue of protecting the confidentiality of observer data2. 

1. PERCEPTION. When I arrived in Alaska in 1996, my 

impression in dealing with observers (and with the observer 

program) was that they did not wish to be viewed as doing 

enforcement monitoring. Indeed, I believe observers, whether 

consciously or unconsciously, felt that the observer’s purpose 

aboard a vessel was purely scientific; they wanted to be 

viewed as separate from any enforcement function. (And there 

is no argument by me that an observer’s function aboard a 

vessel is primarily to gather scientific data.) Both the observer 

program and the enforcement program, whether consciously or 

unconsciously, cooperated in and perpetuated this view not by 

what they did but by what they failed to do. 

Both the observer program and the enforcement program in the 

initial development of this relationship failed to acknowledge 

that regardless of the perception that he Agency desired to 

project for observers, as long as the observer reports back to 

the Agency, the observers very presence on the vessel will 

naturally be viewed by the vessel as having an enforcement component. Moreover, the observer 

sees whatever he/she sees and, if they see a violation then they are expected to report it. Simply 

put, it is impossible to separate the observers’ scientific observations from observations that 

might have an enforcement function. 

Garland Walker 

NOAA GCEL 

It was with the acceptance of this truism that the on-board observer has both a both a science and 

enforcement function that the observer program and the enforcement program started to 

effectively coordinate with each other. This acceptance also allowed the Agency to more clearly 

articulate to and plan with the fleet in light of these dual functions. This was good for observers, 

the observer program and enforcement. With better coordination came the genesis of a very 

successful relationship between the observer program, the enforcement program and the observed 

fleets. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 99
 

It can not be over emphasized that the fleet is a crucial component in this relationship. This is 

because it is the fleet that ultimately carries the observers on their vessels; its where the rubber 

boots meet the deck. It is on these vessels that observers must live and work. Therefore, in order 

to be truly honest with the fleet, consistent in the regulatory requirements that govern a fleet, and 

protective of observers on these vessels, I believe that observer programs must accept that when 

observers are placed on a vessel, they will be viewed as serving two masters -- science and 

enforcement. 

If I have any piece of advice to pass to observers and developing observer programs it would be 

to not run from this fact. Rather, observer programs need to acknowledge and plan from their 

inception that the observer’s role has intrinsically both a scientific and an enforcement function. 

 

2. CURRENT PROCEDURES; COOPERATION BETWEEN THE NPGOP, NMFS Office of 

Law Enforcement (OLE) and GENERAL COUNSEL (GC). Others on the panel will likely detail 

the cooperative efforts between the NPGOP, OLE and GC 4

. However, I want to make clear that 

in NOAA, observers are not authorized to be and are not expected to act as enforcement agents. 

With that said, observers do play a vital part in helping NOAA enforce its regulations5

. In the 

evolution of the observer’s role as referred to above, NOAA has tried to find that appropriate 

balance between the observer’s dual functions. In the Alaska region, this is how we have done 

this. In the observer’s initial training, OLE agents train observers to recognize but not enforce 

potential regulatory violations. On deployment, observers note in their log any potential 

violations that they witness. After deployment, observers are debriefed by an OLE agent 

stationed at the NPGOP. If potential violations are noted by the observer, the observer is asked to 

write a statement attesting to his/her observations. Other OLE personnel are then assigned to 

investigate the potential violation noted in the observer’s statement. If the violation proves to be 

factually founded, an administrative penalty or a civil or criminal charge can result and lead to a 

trial. The trial would be handled by myself or another federal prosecutor. The observer likely 

would be a crucial witness in any prosecution. Simply put, in Alaska, cooperation and 

coordination between NPGOP, OLE and GC is early, often, and continuing. 

3. THE LATEST ISSUE: PROTECTING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF OBSERVER DATA. 

NOAA is concerned with insuring and, under many statutes, has a legal obligation to insure, the 

confidentiality of any observer information that might reveal the identity of a vessel, person, 

fishing location, or proprietary business practice. This is a surprisingly complex issue. Currently, 

aggregation of data (i.e., unless data is aggregated from at least three or more sources, it will not 

be publically released) and removal of personal and business identifiers are among the methods 

being explored to insure confidentiality of observer data prior to any public release. The 

processes to insure the confidentiality of observer information is currently being further refined 

by GC, OLE and the observer programs. 

Notes: 

1. All comments are the author’s subjective views and are not intended to represent the views of the 

NOAA, any program administered by or under the authority of the Agency or any other person employed 

by the Agency.

2. As to specific issues or questions about the operation of the (NPGOP), I would encourage you to speak 

directly with any of the representatives of the NPGOP that are at this conference. As to specific field 

enforcement issues, I would encourage you to speak directly with any of the representatives the NMFS 

Office of Law Enforcement who are at this conference. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 100
 

3. It should also be noted that the NPGOP, OLE and GC all work together to develop and review any 

regulations impacting the observer program. 

4. Personal communication (12/29/08). Patti Nelson & Ren Narita, NOAA Fisheries Monitoring & 

Analysis Division, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Building 4, Seattle, Washington 98115. 

5. United States vs. Enrique Reynaldo Deras, Case No. 3:07-mj-00014-DMS (D.AK., filed Feb. 16, 2007), 

United States vs. Eduardo Ornelas Morales, Case No. 3:07-mj-00084-DMS (D.AK., filed May 1, 2007), 

and United States vs. Lauti Fale Tuipala, Case No. 3:08-mj-00085-DMS (D.AK., filed April 15, 2008). 

Enforcing crimes against observers 

*Nathan Lagerwey and John Kingeter 

NOAA Fisheries Service, Office of Law Enforcement, Alaska, USA 

In 2008, there were 421 observers certified by the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program 

(NPGOP) who served 703 deployments totaling 39,322 data collection days on Alaska vessels 

and at processing plants1

. Because of the isolated and confined environments in which these 

observers live and work, observers are uniquely vulnerable to workplace crimes. 

Over recent years, there 

have been several 

prosecuted observer cases in 

Alaska Federal Fisheries. 

Charges included 

harassment; sexual 

harassment; assault; 

interference; tampering with 

equipment, data, & personal 

effects; mechanical and 

physical sample bias; and 

coercion. Some of these 

prosecutions resulted in 

criminal prosecutions and 

jail time2

. 

Crimes against observers 

can result in severe personal trauma and professional, social, and economic cost to the v

resource. Careers can be cut-short by the physical and psychological damage. Perpetrators

vessel owners, and operators can be held jointly and severally liable. And, marine resource 

managers, researchers, and budget p

Nathan Lagerwey 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

ictim and 

, 

lanners may see crucial data lost or compromised. 

Methods

Within the Alaska Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFOM), observer related cases 

are investigated by the NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement, Alaska Enforcement 

Division (AKD) under the Magnuson Act or MMPA authority. Since 1998, the AKD has 

provided dedicated staff to investigate observer reported violations and to maintain a partnership 

with the NPGOP. The goal of the partnership is to work together on compliance, policy, program 

development, rule making, and observer training. These combined efforts help to reduce the 

negative impact of crimes committed against observers and ultimately against government 

programs, marine resource management, honest stakeholders, and research science. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 101
 

The NPGOP, in partnership with the AKD and University of Alaska, trains observers to 

document potential violations while they are deployed3

. Observers then complete statements 

during debriefing, and the NPGOP forwards the statements and supporting documents to the 

appropriate authority. Statements involving marine resource jurisdiction are forwarded directly to 

the AKD4

. 

Based on observer statements, AKD initiates a variety of law enforcement efforts to help protect 

observers, improve and validate data quality, and ensure honest industry reporting. Law 

enforcement efforts include: 

1) Investigations & Prosecutions 

a. Intelligence Tracking 

b. Notification and Voluntary Compliance 

c. Verbal or Written Warning 

d. Summary Settlement – Agent/Officer discretion. 

e. Civil Prosecution – NOAA GC Attorneys 

f. Criminal prosecution – U.S. Attorneys 

2) Victim Support 

a. Victim/Witness Assistance and Protection 

b. Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) 

c. Referral to Victim/Witness Services 

d. Adherence to Victim/Witness Bill of Rights 42 U.S.C., 10606(b) 

3) Community Oriented Policing & Problem Solving (COPPS)5

a. Partnerships with NPGOP and other NOAA divisions. 

b. Observer training and education. 

c. Stakeholder outreach and education. 

Results/Discussion

 

This presentation provides an overview of crimes against observers and data collection within the 

Alaska RFMO and of the partnership between the AKD and NPGOP. The intent is to stimulate 

discussion that might help to improve similar international, national, and regional partnerships 

and law enforcement efforts that can serve to minimize the impacts of crimes against observers, 

data, and the resource. 

 

Notes: 

1.50CFR §679.50(b) - The purpose of the Groundfish Observer Program is to allow observers to collect 

Alaska fisheries data deemed by the Regional Administrator to be necessary and appropriate for 

management, compliance monitoring, and research of groundfish fisheries and for the conservation of 

marine resources or their environment. 

 50CFR §679.50(j)(ii)(B) - Observers must accurately record their sampling data, write complete reports, 

and report accurately any observations of suspected violations of regulations relevant to conservation of 

marine resources or their environment. 

2. NPGOP, NorPac Database - During calendar years 2006 – 2008, 1005 observer statements were 

forwarded from the NPGOP to the AKD. 

3. http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?item=36, COPPS is defined by the U.S. Department of Justice 

as, “a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships 

and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public 

safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” 

4. NPGOP, NorPac Database - During calendar years 2006 – 2008, 1005 observer statements were 

forwarded from the NPGOP to the AKD. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 102
 

5. http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?item=36, COPPS is defined by the U.S. Department of Justice 

as, “a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships 

and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public 

safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” 

Law enforcement concerns in international observer programs 

*Todd Dubois, NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

Engelke-Ros M, USA 

Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) require high quality, unbiased observer 

data to conduct stock assessments and make appropriate fishery management decisions. The 

NOAA Offices of Law Enforcement and General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation 

(Enforcement) play a critical role in the development of the U.S. position on the international 

observer schemes at the RFMOs to which the United States is a party. In this capacity, 

Enforcement has been advocating for the adoption of provisions that provide for the safety of 

observers, protect data integrity and ensure that observers are not prevented from carrying out 

their duties. 

As has been the case with many domestic observer programs, international observer programs 

have struggled with balancing their scientific data collection and compliance monitoring roles. 

The position of Enforcement is that there are elements of both roles in all observer programs. 

Observers “observe” and, because their observations may be the best available information on 

fishing activity, the data that they collect needs to be available to scientists, fishery managers, 

policy-makers and enforcement. RFMOs have increasingly begun to adopt conservation 

measures (e.g., bycatch mitigation measures, bottom fishing measures with move-on rules, etc.) 

for which compliance can only be effectively monitored through the use of observer data. 

Increasing reliance on observer data to meet a myriad of science, management and compliance 

needs creates incentives to circumvent the observer and introduce sample bias (e.g., through 

mechanical or physical pre-sorting) or otherwise impede an observer’s ability to carry out his/her 

duties (e.g., through harassment, interference, etc.) and emphasizes the importance of including a 

law enforcement perspective when designing international observer schemes. In addition, it has 

long been the position of Enforcement that, regardless of the overall compliance role of observers 

in any given observer program, law enforcement personnel must be allowed access to observer 

data. Through the involvement of law enforcement and legal counsel in the development of 

international observer schemes, instruments can be drafted that support the intent and goals of the 

observer program and fishery managers while providing adequate protections for observers and 

for the integrity of the data that they collect. 

At their recent summit meeting, the five tuna RFMOs agreed to convene a workshop on 

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance in 2010. Among other things, this Workshop will 

undertake the development of a Model Scheme of Observation. There seems to be a trend among 

new and recently-amended schemes towards modernizing international observer schemes by 

clarifying the obligations of both vessels and observers and enhancing accountability. 

The effort being undertaken by the tuna RFMOs will provide an excellent opportunity for the 

international community to expand on this trend by agreeing on minimum standards for observer 

programs including provisions addressing protection of the observer, protection of data integrity, 

access to data and accountability. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 103
The increasing importance of partnerships between observer programs and law enforcement in 

the RFMO context would benefit from a dedicated workshop on "Legal issues in Observer 

Programs" at a future International Fisheries Observer Conference. Workshop topics could 

include domestic and international law, international fisheries treaties, privacy laws, 

confidentiality of observer collected data, legal uses of observer data, consequences of observer 

involvement in court proceedings, development of sampling protocols that support compliance 

measures, evidentiary uses of observer information and protection of observers at sea. 

Towards the integration of new technologies based on forensic 

genetics and chemistry into a European framework for fisheries 

monitoring, control and surveillance 

Luca Arnaudo1, Alessandro Ghigi2, Floriana Folisi1 and *Jann Th. Martinsohn1

European Commission, DG Joint Research Center, Institute for the Protection and 

Security of the Citizen1

The FishPopTrace Consortium2

Introduction

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) are key to 

the European Union (EU) Common Fisheries Policy 

(CFP), and the availability of efficient law enforcement 

measures is indispensible for fisheries management 

schemes. 

The importance of effective MCS strategies is 

highlighted by the global problem of Illegal, Unreported 

and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. Having reached huge 

levels, IUU fishing threatens marine ecosystems, 

undermines sustainable fisheries management and 

hampers socio-economic development. The value of 

IUU fishing amounts worldwide to an estimated €10-20 

billion annually1

, more than twice the value of total 

landings by the EU fleet2

.Moreover, there are numerous 

cases where fish (product) has been sold using false 

labeling, showing that worldwide criminal conduct 

extends into the fisheries supply chain. MCS by remote 

sensing and electronic reporting is well established and 

referred to in the EU legislation. In contrast, a 

corresponding EU-wide MCS infrastructure, based on forensic genetics and chemistry, is 

currently not available, despite there being a great potential to combat illegal fishing, support 

fairness and transparency, and for species and origin verification for traceability along the fish 

(product) supply chain (“ocean to fork”). 

Jann Th. Martinsohn 

European Commission, Italy 

Examples, where these analyses have been successfully applied, clearly demonstrate their 

feasibility and benefit for MCS. However, to fully integrate new technologies based on forensic 

genetics and chemistry into an elaborate and coherent EU or international MCS framework, 

cooperation between all stakeholders will have to be established.

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 104
 

Methods

Controlling for compliance with existing fisheries regulations depends on an identification system 

capable of answering the following questions swiftly and reliably: 

• What fish species is it? 

• Where was the fish caught? 

• Is it possible to trace the fish(product) above and below in the food supply chain? 

Species identification through DNA analysis, even on processed products, is established. Projects 

like FishTrace3

, or the international Fish Barcode of Life Initiative (FISH-BOL)4, provide online 

catalogues compiling reference DNA sequences derived from voucher specimen, allowing 

samples to be identified without prior species knowledge. These catalogues are publicly 

accessible and control authorities can employ “in-house” laboratories or academic research 

institutions to use those for species identification. On the contrary origin assignment of marine 

fish remains more challenging: Populations (stocks) of marine fish species mostly exhibit 

extensive gene flow between regions, and the detection of genetic differentiation heavily relies on 

sophisticated statistical techniques. To assign samples with sufficient confidence, large numbers 

of polymorphic genetic markers and comprehensive population data sets are required. 

FishPopTrace5

, an international project funded under the EU 7th Framework Programme, aims at 

developing end-user tools for fish population structure analysis and fish(product) traceability. 

Validated panels of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) markers for geographic origin 

assignment will be generated for the commercially important fish species cod (Gadus morhua), 

hake (Merluccius merluccius), herring (Clupea harengus) and common sole (Solea solea). The 

use of otolith microchemistry for fish origin assignment will also be explored. Developed tools 

for MCS will be scrutinized by applying forensic standards. 

Discussion

IUU fishing has high priority on the international policy agenda. The FAO international plan of 

action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing was adopted 2001. However, as it remains a 

growing problem, in 2008 the European Community adopted a regulation providing a legal 

framework to fight IUU fishing, entering into force on 1st January 20106

.The central pillars of 

this regulation are a catch certification scheme, international cooperation, and support to 

developing countries. Independent control measures will be crucial for the implementation of this 

regulation. Here DNA and chemical analysis can provide powerful tools, revealing deceit 

reliably, rapidly, in a cost effective manner, and along the entire supply chain. The potential of 

genetic analysis was also emphasized in a recent European Commission proposal for a CFP 

control reform7

. Species identification by DNA analysis is already applied frequently to reveal 

fraud, as shown in the U.S.A8

 and Europe9. Origin assignment of fish based on DNA technologies 

or chemistry for fisheries MCS is still uncommon. However, in Denmark, a fisherman who 

declared a false origin of cod was recently convicted based on evidence obtained by genetic 

analysis, and meanwhile the Danish control authorities established a permanent collaboration 

with the Danish Technical University for the of use genetic analysis in fisheries control10. Despite 

these achievements, a coherent EU or international approach to ensure the availability of such 

technologies to control and enforcement authorities, as well as acceptance in courts, is lacking. 

Forensic validation would greatly support this aim, but enhanced cooperation and a mutual 

dialogue between all relevant stakeholders is also urgently needed. FishPopTrace facilitates the 

integration of these tools into MCS schemes by following an elaborate technology transfer 

approach. This implies engagement with stakeholders such as the industry, control/ enforcement 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 105
 

authorities, international organisations, and policy-making institutions to identify requirements in 

the context of law and policy frameworks. Moreover, emphasis will be put on relevance, costs 

and potential for uptake. 

Notes: 

1. Agnew, D.J., et al.. 2009. Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS ONE 4 (2), e4570. 

2. European Commission DG Mare Press Corner 

3. http://www.fishtrace.org/ 

4. http://www.fishbol.org/ 

5. https://fishpoptrace.jrc.ec.europa.eu 

6. Council Regulation (EC) No.1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and 

Eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Official Journal of the European Union L 286/1. 

7. European Commission 2008. Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a Community control 

system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. COM(2008) 721 final. 

8. Personal Communication. P. Raymond. NOAA Office of Law Enforcement. 263 13th Avenue South St. 

Petersburg, FL 33701, U.S.A. 

9. Annual Report 2007/08. Institute for Hygiene und Environment Hamburg Germany. 

10. Personal Communication. L.B. Erikson. Danish Fisheries Inspectorate. 

Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Question/Comment 

Joe Arceneaux 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Within the European Commission, do the 

observer programs play anything as far as 

product identification or ensuring, like the 

example you raised? Baltic Cod was not 

from North Sea or vice versa. 

Response 

Jann Martinsohn 

European Commission 

Italy 

Actually, this is an EU members’ state affair 

and indeed, observers and inspectors are 

capable of identifying fish or fish products. 

Interestingly enough, in Denmark actually 

what is going on (I find this quite impressive 

and would like this to happen all over 

Europe) is that inspectors work together 

with the academic institutions, in this case 

the Danish Technical University. They have 

a little kit which can take sample tissues for 

example, and can send them back to the 

university lab to perform genetic analysis in 

order to identify the fish species or where 

the fish comes from 

Comment/Question 

Larry Beerkircher 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

This question is for Todd. If you want to 

use observer data for enforcement 

compliance in a less than 100 percent 

coverage fishery, it seems to me that the 

starting point of unbiased compliance would 

be getting observers out on selected vessels 

to begin with so they could witness those 

violations. So given relatively scarce 

enforcement resources, is there any priority 

placed on allocating investigations and 

compliance enforcement to issues of 

observer refusals and safety issues before 

 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 106
 

those of the actual fisheries violations that 

are witnessed by the observers? 

Response 

Todd Dubois 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Our perspective is that refusals and 

definitely avoiding observer coverage is 

critically important. It certainly has varied, 

based on enforcement resources, but I think 

that we’ve got a very good handle on it in 

the United States. I don’t know I would 

welcome comments from other countries as 

far as whether this is an issue for them. But 

you’re absolutely right. If we can’t get 

observers on the vessels that the program 

decides need to be observed for those less 

than 100 percent programs you’re 

undermining the entire credibility of the 

system and of the data. So the Office of 

Law Enforcement feels that’s a critical piece 

and we do take those very seriously. 

Comment/Question 

Kim Dietrick 

Consultant 

USA 

Nathan described really well the laws that 

protect U.S. observers from certain 

behaviors while being deployed on U.S. 

vessels. But I’m wondering if there are 

similar international laws protecting 

observers from, sort of, similar behaviors 

while onboard fishing or transshipment 

vessels in international waters? 

Response 

Joe Arceneaux 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

Within the transshipment programs the roles 

and responsibility of both the captain and 

the vessels and the observers are clearly 

defined. Currently what’s happened is that 

the observers maintain good contact with 

MRAG, which is their contractor. I think 

there have been a few instances of things 

that were brought down through 

miscommunication, and were resolved really 

quickly, once the secretariat of the particular 

RFMO was in contact with the reefer 

company. There are a few minor things I can 

think of but I won’t go into them, but they 

were resolved rather quickly. I don’t know 

that they actually have the weight of say an 

international legal instrument. But there is 

some written documentation, maybe on a 

case by case basis, that seems to be adhered 

to. 

Response 

Todd Dubois 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

I can only speak initially from the United 

State perspective – the Office of Law 

Enforcement and the Office of General 

Council has worked very closely with the 

Office of International Affairs and the 

RFMO as well as the State Department to 

really push for the observer schemes to 

ensure that we have safety protocols, 

observer data bias issues to cover all that. In 

fact, I think CCAMLR down off Antarctica 

and the tooth fish issue is the most recent 

example. 

I may defer somewhat, if after you want to 

speak – with Megan, the enforcement 

attorney from GC, she can probably answer 

that better from the CCAMLR perspective. 

But it basically comes down to the 

conservation measures and the observers 

schemes, and we have to continue to push 

collectively to make sure that we have 

strong support in those conservation 

measures and then that the nations involved 

in that implement the domestic regulations 

necessary to protect the observers and 

enforce those conservation measures. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 107
 

Question/ Comment 

Jason Vestre 

West Coast Groundfish Observer Program 

USA 

First of all, I have to say I am definitely 

grateful for enforcement support. I couldn’t 

do my job otherwise. There would be too 

much fear. I’ve spent years establishing 

good working relationships with the 

fishermen in my port, and this talk of 

enforcement makes me nervous. I’m a little 

bit nervous to be in the same room with a 

special agent. Somebody mentioned 

programs don’t want to be associated with 

enforcement. I definitely do not because of 

these relationships. So my question, I think 

maybe for Mr. Walker, do you make any 

effort on the prosecution end to exclude the 

observer from the prosecution? Or are we 

the trump card you put on your forehead? 

Response 

Garland Walker 

NOAA GCEL 

USA

Well, Jason, I guess the answer to that 

question is like a lot of legal questions and 

that is, “it depends”. What I mean by that, 

of course, is if the observer is the only 

person who observed that violation then 

there’s little choice than to use the observer 

as a witness. Now, having said that, we 

don’t try to use the observer as a hammer, I 

guess you would say. If we can keep the 

case out of court, if we can prove it in other 

ways we would try to do that if the observer 

has a hesitancy to appear in court or for 

whatever reason. We try to take the 

personality or the circumstance of the 

observer into consideration, but we still 

ultimately need to do our job, and you can 

certainly understand when there is a 

violation, we need to prove that. So it 

depends if we have to use the observer’s 

testimony or have to use the observer in 

court. The bottom line is we always try to 

work with our witnesses and with the 

observers to use them in whatever fashion 

they’re comfortable with. 

Question/Comment 

Georg Hinteregger 

Observer 

USA 

My question is for Sarah Wetmore. During 

your excellent summary of your complex 

mission in the northeast, you alluded briefly 

to difficulties that observers experience on 

scallop vessels. You mentioned that this is 

industry funded. I thought perhaps that this 

was the source of the problem that some of 

these observers were experiencing. 

I was surprised to hear that your scallop 

observers are having these kinds of 

difficulties since I understand that scallop 

vessels are allowed additional catch to 

compensate for the cost of carrying the 

observer, and that that additional allocation 

often exceeds the actual costs. So, in many 

cases it’s actually profitable for them to 

carry an observer. It motivates them to 

cooperate with the program. Do you think 

that it would be helpful to sever the direct 

link between vessel profit and observer 

compensation? I understand the industry 

funded multi-observer provider model has 

been authorized for the Northeast, do you 

anticipate more such problems with 

observers in the future? 

Response 

Sara Wetmore 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

Thank you for your question. There are a 

bunch of questions in there. I guess, at first, 

I would have to think back to the beginning 

of this program, and there are some 

difficulties that the observers do have 

because of the different compensations 

when a vessel is allowed to go into an access 

area versus an open area. So that is real. 

They are allowed to keep more catch, when 

they have an observer onboard, in an access 

area, so we did find that there were some 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 108
 

observer affects. There’s a poster from a 

couple of my colleagues here that describe 

that affect. 

I did mention that we do have vessel call-in 

coordinators that try to anticipate fleet 

behavior and actually communicate a lot 

with fishermen and try to avoid any kinds of 

observer affects. The call-in coordinators 

definitely, reselect and reselect particular 

vessels that are avoiding coverage, so we are 

trying to balance things out. As far as 

changing this paradigm, I’m not sure that I 

have thought about it enough. Maybe some 

of my colleagues here would like to answer 

that question, but there are a lot of positives 

to the program as well. 

Comment/Question 

Lisa Borges 

European Commission 

Belgium 

I have more comments for Garland and 

Todd. I understand when you talk about 

making laws a little bit more implementable 

and simple by working together with control 

people. The department I work for in the 

European Commission was recently 

restructured because we realized that the 

conservation people put all of these 

management plans and measures in place to 

reduce exploitation, but the control people 

work in a different department, and when 

they found themselves with laws, kept on 

saying, “ I don’t know how we are going to 

do this”. Now, the control people and the 

conservation people are working together on 

the same team. I understand that the 

observer role in a program always has that 

imminent enforcement part of it”. 

I am always worried when enforcement and 

science mix. Two and a half years ago in the 

last conference, I gave a talk about what 

happened in Ireland- when the observer data 

of the scientific program was called into a 

major police and prosecution case for 

misreporting landings. Now, the cause of 

that was actually the complete collapse of 

the data collection system in Ireland, which 

collapsed the stock assessment process, 

resulting in no scientific advice management 

for two years 

Now they are back up and working with the 

industry getting data. Being the Chair of the 

data extrapolation workshop, there is so 

much that you can do with statistics data. If 

you are observing, it is completely biased 

because of enforcement. You definitely have 

a problem. Although I understand your 

point, which we are trying to resolve, but be 

aware that data quality is a huge issue and I 

do not know how to resolve that. 

Response 

Garland Walker 

NOAA GCEL 

USA

Thank you, Lisa that was a very good point. 

I think it’s not uncommon in all of the 

programs, and I think it’s a very delicate 

balancing act. I think part of it is the 

partnership; one, it helps ensure that if there 

are laws put in place or there are the 

observers put in that situation or if the data 

is going to be used for enforcement purposes 

the expectation is laid out up front so that 

the industry is aware of it, and that we sell it 

collectively as both the scientists, the 

managers and the compliance of the value of 

us all working together to develop a 

program that takes into account everybody’s 

sensitivities and issues. I’m not sure if it’s 

true or not to say that data integrity is 

completely affected if there is a compliance 

function or not. I welcome the opportunity 

to talk to you later. 

Question/Comment 

Craig Loveridge 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand 

I have a question for Joe on the tuna 

transshipment program. Joe, I’m presuming 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 109
 

that the tuna popsicle, come out of the hole 

fairly quickly and they are transferred fairly 

quickly, so they observer doesn’t have a lot 

of time to count all of the fish. I was 

wondering if you considered using some sort 

of electrical monitoring system that the 

observer could set up so when the 

transshipment was over, maybe they could 

review what happened. If it was times or 

parts of the process they were unsure of, 

maybe that they got their count wrong or 

they were unsure of a species at all. 

Response 

Joe Arceneaux 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

No, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. 

Yeah, you’re right. I think there is a good 

opportunity in the case with monitoring 

transshipment operations that you could 

very well have a role documenting the units 

very commonly come across as a string 

either with video or photographs in a case 

that actually does happen. We’re still trying 

to make it better. We haven’t decided not to 

do that and I think there is certainly, 

potentially a role for using some electronic 

monitoring or electronic augmentation of the 

system to keep track of it for verification, 

validation, and what not. 

Question/Comment 

Pierre Meke 

Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and 

Animal Industries 

Cameroon

This question is directed to Nathan 

Lagerway. Despite the cost, we have to pay 

for the observer. We need them onboard all 

the vessels at the end of the day because 

they are our witnesses to know what is going 

on. But in terms of enforcement, I believe 

that the protection of observers will depend 

on the way we use the information. I mean, 

there is a need to put a time lock between 

the reports given by the observers and the 

prosecution phase. They should not be a 

direct link between the information brought 

by the observer and the prosecution phase. 

We can give a time lag for the assumption. 

I would like to know do you have records or 

statistics on all the cases you’ve raised here 

about, for example, sexual assaults and so 

on? What did you do? What happened? 

What kind of measure did you take later on 

when you have registered all these cases? 

Were those significant in your fisheries? 

Response 

Nathan Lagerway 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

The incidents of sexual assault are pretty 

rare. In regards to what you mentioned 

about separation and time the observer is 

onboard the vessel- in Alaska fisheries we 

have observers that are aboard vessels for a 

couple months at a time, generally (trip 

length could be a matter of days to up to 

three months) so the first thing that we 

always consider, if the observer is still 

onboard the vessel, is how is what we’re 

doing going to affect that observer aboard 

the vessel, Is the observer coming off of the 

vessel? Does the observer want off the 

vessel? There are a lot of things that we 

have to balance before enforcement takes 

any action. That’s further complicated 

whenever you have an observer that’s still 

observing the same vessel and, or the same 

fleet, because there may be rumors that go 

through the fleet. I don’t know if that 

answers the question. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 110
Panel Session 5: 

What factors should be considered when addressing access to 

fishery monitoring information? 

Moderator: Dennis Hansford, National Marine Fisheries Service, USA 

Speakers 

Roger Fleming – USA 

Public access to fishery observer data as a critical component of management. 

Shelly Bond – Canada 

Data sharing and data accessibility in Canada. 

Amy Van Atten – USA 

When it rains it pours- a programs struggle to balance data collection and data dissemination. 

Keith Hagg – USA 

A case study in agency implementation of statuses- The confidentiality requirement and associated 

expectations under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation Act. 

Introduction to the session 

What are the considerations that should be addressed when seeking access to fishery observer 

information? This question has given raise to valid concerns from resource managers, fishermen, 

non-governmental organizations, and scientists alike. From perspectives ranging from; data 

collected by observers contain proprietary information thus making it confidential and nonreleasable to information collected on a public resource should be made completely available to 

the public. 

What are the rules for access to and confidentiality of data collected through public versus private 

funding? How can we gain access to proprietary and fishing operation information? What are the 

tools for accessing confidential information? What are the tools for proper data storage? 

In the U.S., the release of observer information is guided by provisions on confidentiality in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA Section 402(b)) and Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA Section 118(d) (8) and (9)). Under the MSRA, observer information is considered to 

be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except in accordance with certain exceptions. The 

MMPA also prohibits the release of information that is proprietary in nature. 

This session examined how these concerns are being addressed on an international level. 

Speakers were welcomed form various countries representing government and non-government 

organizations and shared their respective approach to accessing fishery monitoring data. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 111
Public access to fishery observer data as a critical component of 

management 

*Roger Fleming, Esq1

, Tom Rudolph2

Earthjustice, Maine, U.S.A1 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association, Massachusetts, USA2

Introduction

It is widely recognized that the ocean and the fisheries resources within it are public trust 

resources belonging to all of us as citizens. As public trust resources, the government agencies 

entrusted to manage them must do so with an eye toward ensuring they are managed for the longterm best interests of all living and future citizens1

. Integral to this is the public’s right to know 

how its resources are being managed and to have the opportunity to participate effectively in 

resource management decisions. 

The availability of fisheries data is critical to effective public participation and sound 

management. Stakeholders and the public must have access to data to so they can help craft 

management solutions, make informed decisions, and participate effectively in our representative 

democracy. Inclusion of new language on fishery observer data confidentiality in the MagnusonStevens Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA), however, may create long-term management 

problems, depending upon the nature of the implementing regulations crafted by NOAA 

Fisheries. In the absence of such regulations, the language created problems for stakeholders in 

2007 - 2008 because NOAA Fisheries, in at least some cases, appeared to put a freeze on data 

releases. 

Fortunately, the situation has improved under the new Obama administration, as White House 

directives on government transparency have helped to unclog the information pipelines with 

embrace of the concept that openness in government should prevail2

. However, problems remain. 

Data important to fisheries management are often aggregated or spatially blurred in ways that 

severely limit stakeholders’ ability to participate in the management process effectively. Also, 

clear procedures for access to information are not available and there is confusion over what may 

be released and how. Finally, the process appears to strain NMFS resources and may be 

inefficient. 

Our nation has long recognized, as reflected in laws like the Freedom of Information Act, that 

open government makes for better decision-making and there is a presumption that the 

information held by the government is available to the public unless certain exceptions prevent its 

release3

. This presumption of disclosure also suggests that agencies should take affirmative steps 

to make information public rather than waiting for specific requests from the public4

. 

Methods 

A compelling example of the problems described above from the New England fisheries will be 

illustrated and explored. Potential solutions will be explored. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 112
Results/Discussion

In November 2007 the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) initiated a reexamination and overhaul of the monitoring system in the Atlantic herring fishery. In response, 

in November 2007, the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association (CCCHFA), a 

longtime participant in this management plan, promptly requested comprehensive observer data 

in order to undertake analyses of the existing program as a necessary precursor to designing new 

measures through the fishery management plan amendment process. NOAA Fisheries initially 

approved the data request, but subsequently rescinded approval prior to delivery of the data. The 

agency finally delivered limited data in January 2009. In the interim, significant work had been 

done on the new monitoring amendment and stakeholders like CCCHFA had to rely on internal 

analyses by NOAA Fisheries. These were valuable, but also in large part different than those 

CCCHFA would have undertaken. 

New regulatory guidelines addressing the MSRA’s confidentiality provisions must ensure timely 

public access to fisheries-related information. The MSRA modified section 402(b), but 

importantly did not change the provision providing the Secretary with clear authority to release or 

make public confidential fishery observer information, so long as the release does not directly or 

indirectly disclose the identity or business of any person who submits such information5

. The 

public is still waiting for updated confidentiality regulations in response to the MSRA’s changes. 

Public access to such information is critical to ensuring that fisheries management decisions are 

made in a manner consistent with the government’s public trust responsibility for the nation’s 

marine resources. 

We recommend that NOAA Fisheries take the following steps: 1) recognize that the fisheries data 

they collect is largely gathered with public funding and pertains to their management of a public 

resource for the long-term benefit of all citizens, 2) embrace the presumption that such 

information should be 

publicly disseminated, 

unless an exception clearly 

applies, as a critical part of 

good management, 3) in 

view of the apparent current 

policy of responding to data 

requests expeditiously, 

strive to improve upon the 

timeliness of responses to 

information requests so that 

stakeholders can effectively 

participate in the 

management process (and 

do not re-institute freezes on 

data releases), 4) make the 

deliberations over the new 

MSA confidentiality regulations transparent and subject to a definite timeline (and immediately 

inform the public about the (ongoing) rulemaking process), 5) make raw observer data public to 

the maximum extent possible in near real time to expedite its availability and free staff from the 

burden of conducting multiple custom queries, and 6) recognize that any data not made public 

must be subject to rigorous outside auditing with specifications designed with public 

participation. 

Roger Fleming 

Earth Justice, USA 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 113
Notes: 

of Ocean Use and Abuse, and the Possibility of a Blue Water Public Trust Doctrine, 36 

 

-175, 121 Stat. 

ctiveness in Our National Government Act of 2007”). 

s. 

. 16 U.S.C. §1881a(b)(3). 

1. Mary Turnipseed, et. al, The Silver Anniversary of the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone: 

Twenty-five Years 

ECGLQ 1 (2009). 

2. Presidential Memorandums to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies re: Freedom of 

Information Act, and Transparency and Open Government, 74 Fed. Reg. 4683, 4685 (January 26, 2009).

3. The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 as amended by Public Law No. 110

2524 (“Openness Promotes Effe

4. Presidential Memorandum

5

Data sharing and data accessibility in Canada 

 Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Nova Scotia, Canada 

troduction

Shelley A. Bond 

 Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science, Maritimes Region 

In

olicy to be discussed here is that data must be made available to the user community at large. 

rea 

nriches the understanding of the Marine environment to the 

ltimate benefit of all Canadians. 

asic Principles 

Science Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in an on-going effort 

to improve the management of scientific data holdings has implemented the Management Policy 

for Scientific Data. Scientific data held by DFO are a valuable national resource which must be

properly managed for the benefit of the citizens of Canada. One of the basic principles of this 

P

In the Canadian Maritimes Region DFO’s Science Branch manages, in accordance with the 

Policy, the catch, effort, and sampling data collected by fishery observers. These data represent 

over thirty years of investment and are a rich source of data collected over a large geographic a

from a wide range of fishing activities. DFO provides appropriate subsets of these data upon

request to DFO scientists and fishery managers, NGOs, consultants, universities, and other 

researchers. This practice further e

u

B

he Basic Principles of the Policy are: 

hat 

ata are irreplaceable, 

 maintain responsibility for their quality control, management, archiving and 

 must be migrated to a ‘managed’ archive immediately after the data have been 

c 

ith 

T

1. “Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) scientific data sets are valuable national resources t

have been acquired through decades of investment, enabling the Department to maintain 

world leadership in aquatic sciences and aquatic management. These d

and must be protected and managed to ensure long-term availability. 

2. Because of the complex and often unique nature of scientific data, it is essential that DFO 

Science/Oceans

dissemination. 

3. To ensure proper management and archival of data, all scientific data collected by the 

Department

processed. 

4. To obtain maximum benefit to the Department and to the user community at large, scientifi

data must be made available in a timely manner with full and open access, consistent w

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 114
Departmental, national and international obligations with respect to its data holdings. 

5. To obtain access to international data and information that are pertinent to Ca

1

nadian needs, 

Canada must be able to exchange its data with other world data centers ...”. 

g 

r use or 

isinterpretation of the data a knowledgeable contact person should be identified. 

xceptions to the Policy are: 

ll include the rationale for 

data would be protected under s.18 of the Access to Information and Privacy 

Act .” 

iscussion

DFO further recognizes that 1) the privacy of individuals must be maintained when providin

access to data 2) to obtain access to international data that are pertinent to Canadian needs, 

Canada must be able to exchange its data with other parties and 3) to avoid imprope

m

E

• “DFO investigators have written approval from the Regional Science/Oceans Director to 

delay access to the data; in such cases, the letter of approval wi

the delay, and an agreed-upon date for the release of the data; 

• There are third party agreements, privacy concerns, or legal restrictions; 

• The data are of commercial benefit to DFO, in which case they will be managed 

according to Departmental intellectual property management regimes and prevailing 

policy. The 

1

D

verable 

portals 

cluding GeoPortal, GeoConnections, and the Global Change Master Directory. 

 through the 

, and states that DFO has the right to review the results of the analysis before any 

ublication. 

ubset of data. Nothing which identifies the vessel or the observer is 

rovided to external parties. 

of the marine environment. All of which ultimately 

enefits the Canadian public as a whole. 

ic Data. On line at http:/www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/dataonnees/policy-politique-eng.htm

In an effort to facilitate access to the observer data for external parties DFO provides disco

metadata on the Internet. This information is available through various discovery 

in

Potential users are asked to complete and sign a data use agreement available online

metadata which outlines restrictions on the use of the data as provided, identifies a 

knowledgeable contact person to provide the appropriate result set and assist in proper 

interpretation

p

To protect the privacy of individuals DFO uses the three vessel rule, i.e. there must be more than 

three vessels involved in the s

p

These practices 1) enhance DFO’s relationships with external organizations 2) improve the 

overall quality of the data as errors discovered during analysis are reported 3) facilitate peer 

review and 4) increases the understanding 

b

Notes: 

1. Management Policy for Scientif

d

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 115
When it rains it pours – A program’s struggle to balance data 

collection with data dissemination 

Amy S. Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, Massachusetts, USA 

The Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) is a multi-purpose program, providing 

observer coverage in over 30 different fisheries in eleven states from Maine through North 

Carolina. NEFOP data are used to monitor real time quota catch levels, evaluate bycatch patterns 

of declining fish stocks, sea turtles, sea birds, and marine mammals, and other protected species, 

and collect basic information to assess the status of marine resources. During times of regulatory 

change with significant actions that impact fishing communities and the marine environment, 

observer data becomes of particular interest. During these times, there tends to also be 

Congressional interest to increase observer coverage. Observer Programs can quickly become 

overwhelmed as they are tasked with additional 

funds, as they must coordinate additional training 

and certification of observers, modify contracts, 

recruit more debriefers, respond to more 

compliance issues, process more data, and respond 

to additional data inquiries. One recent regulatory 

change was the Standardized Bycatch Reporting 

Methodology (SBRM) Omnibus amendment that 

requires an annual discard report based on NEFOP 

data to be prepared by the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC) and provided to the 

Fishery Management Councils. The annual 

discard report includes: (1) the number of observer 

sea days scheduled for each fishery, by area and 

gear type, in each quarter; (2) the percent of total 

trips observed, by gear type, in each quarter; (3) 

the distribution of sea sampling trips by gear type 

and statistical area in each fishery; (4) the 

observed catch and discards of each species, by 

gear type and fishery, in each quarter; and (5) the 

observed catch and discards of each species, by 

gear type and fishery, in each statistical area. 

Another recent change was with the MagnusonStevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA) amended 

Section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to require the confidentially of observer information. 

This authorizes NMFS to release confidential information in “any aggregate or summary form 

that does not directly or indirectly disclose the identity or business of any person”. The Agen

working on stand

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

cy is 

ardizing the release of observer data. 

In the last two years, there have been significant regulatory actions in the Scallop Fisheries 

Management Plan requiring the development of an Industry Funded Scallop Program, the Herring 

Management Plan, the Multispecies Groundfish Management Plan, and the Squid, Mackerel, 

Butterfish Plan all relating to monitoring needs. The NEFOP must balance staffing needs to meet 

coverage requirements, reporting requirements, respond to hundreds of specialized requests for 

data summaries, research interests, and sample collection projects, and further develop automated 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 116
processes for allowing access to observer data, while trying to minimize the total costs of 

observer programs. Regular funding to support long-term employment of data analysts and 

computer programmers can help to ensure specialized training and skills to meet sophisticated 

data warehousing and web-supported access that meets the confidentiality regulations. 

A case study in agency implementation of statutes – the 

confidentiality requirement and associated exceptions under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act 

Keith A. Hagg 

 NOAA, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Fisheries 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must maintain the confidentiality of any information submitted 

in compliance with the Act and any observer information1

. The Act includes exceptions that 

allow for the disclosure of confidential information if certain conditions are satisfied2

. In 

addition, the Act authorizes NMFS to publically release confidential information in an aggregate 

or summary form that does not directly or indirectly disclose the identity of any person who 

submits such information3

. The first step in implementing statutory language is to determine 

whether the language is clear on its face or ambiguous and subject to interpretation4

. For aspects 

of the statutory language that are ambiguous, courts will defer to an agency so long as its 

interpretation is reasonable5

. In interpreting and implementing ambiguous aspects of the MSA’s 

confidentiality requirement, exceptions to the requirement, and the authorization to release 

information in aggregate or summary form, NMFS considers various – and often divergent – 

interests such as those expressed within the agency, the fishing industry, non-government 

organizations, research institutions, and federal and state law enforcement among others. Factors 

to consider include legal constraints, protection of proprietary information, the need for release of 

information to advance law enforcement, scientific research, and transparency in NMFS 

implementation of other provisions of the Act, and the importance of consistency when 

responding to requests for information. 

Notes: 

1. Management Policy for Scientific Data. On line at http:/www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/datadonnees/policy-politique-eng.htm 

2. 16 U.S.C. 1881a(b)(1), (2) (2009). 

3. 16 U.S.C. 1881a(b)(1)(A)-(H), (2)(A)-(C). 

4. 16 U.S.C. 1881a(b)(3). 

5. Chevron, USA Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984). 

1 Id. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 117
 Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Question/Comment 

Craig Loveridge 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand

I’m actually part of the information 

management group. Part of what we do is 

we process regular requests for information 

from the Ministry of Fisheries, and a lot of 

those requests deal with observer data. 

We operate under a piece of legislation 

called the Official Information Act, which is 

very similar to the U.S. Freedom of 

Information Act where we have to balance 

the public good of releasing the information 

versus the sensitivity associated with the 

information, and observer data is considered 

sensitive for reasons that it does contain 

trade secrets and commercial information. 

It’s sensitive because if it were to be 

released improperly there could be problems 

with future provision of that information. 

So for us in New Zealand there’s always a 

balancing act between how much public 

interest there is in releasing the information 

versus what level of information we will 

release to that source. If there’s high public 

good we’ll generally release more 

information at a greater level. If there’s 

reasonably low public interest or public 

good then we’ll release more summarized 

information. My group does that on a 

regular basis. I have something I’d like 

Roger to consider and to talk more about if 

he could. I mentioned that in New Zealand 

one of the things we often have to do is 

balance the sensitivity of observer 

information against the future provision of 

information. 

The fact that if we were to release 

information improperly then we may not be 

able to get an observer out into the fishery 

again, because the fishers may not take an 

observer, or they may seek to impair their 

observer’s workload in some way because 

they felt that there was some secret that was 

released improperly or details of their 

fishing operation were released improperly. 

I’d like to know whether that is – because 

that comes to your recommendation on point 

five- observer data publicly available to the 

highest level possible. I’d like to know 

whether you feel that in your situation that’s 

a likely thing that might happen, that future 

provisions might be impaired or endangered 

if observer data is released at too fine a 

level? 

Response 

Roger Fleming 

Earth Justice 

USA

The short answer to your question is yes. 

There is a level at which I think that there is 

risk to the long term provision of accurate 

data. As I sat here and I listened to the 

presentations, I guess the image that was 

created in my mind is that there’s something 

of a sliding scale here. The issues that we’re 

putting on the table have to do with really at 

what level the data is protected and the 

timeliness of the provision of that data, 

which is also an important issue. 

Now when I look at section 402 or even if I 

look at the broader provisions of the 

Freedom of Information Action, I think that 

there’s clearly focus on data that might 

directly or indirectly disclose the identity or 

business of a person. That’s from the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 118
Magnuson Act. Or, as we’ve discussed, 

commercial trade secrets, commercial or 

financial information from the Freedom of 

Information Act. I don’t think that my 

clients would quibble much with these 

specific exemptions from disclosure. One 

way to look at it is Keith’s discussion of 

what is reasonable. I think that my clients 

and our firm’s perspective is that this is a 

public trust resource. The fact that the public 

owns these resources should heavily 

influence the level of aggregation of the 

data. I think that there is a point at which the 

accuracy of the data may be compromised. I 

also think that there are other tools to 

address those issues. Simply put, there is a 

command and control approach to this as 

well. It’s a privilege to fish. To some 

extent, fishermen just need to recognize that 

it is a privilege, and that as a part of that 

privilege they need to accurately and 

precisely report information. 

I guess my final point would just be that 

from our perspective we need to try 

something new. Because right now, if you 

look at a case study that we highlighted, we 

don’t really feel that there is accurate and 

precise data being collected right now, at 

least in that one particular fishery that we’ve 

focused on, so something needs to change. 

Hopefully by injecting some more public 

trust perspective into this we can move it in 

the right direction. 

Response 

Craig Loveridge 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand

Thanks, Roger. Just as a follow-up, again 

from the New Zealand example. There is 

one provision in the official information act 

that when somebody requests data from the 

government, because the government holds 

the observer information, we have to 

respond to that within 20 working days. So 

that’s in our legislation as well, and, yes, I 

look forward to talking with some of the 

panel members later. 

Comment 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

I can provide a bit more information, 

because I personally received the data 

request from the case study that Roger 

described. The request itself was very 

extensive. It required over seven pages of 

script writing. It included multiple 

databases, so it was a complex request. At 

the same time we were waiting for the final 

reauthorization of the Magnuson Act, which 

was redeveloping the confidentiality 

guidelines and regulation for release of 

observer data. Prior to the reauthorization 

we had a different approach to releasing 

observer data. 

In light of what was going on, the timing of 

the request was bad. We were still trying to 

develop national standards. We had an 

initiative to come to an agreement between 

13 different national observer programs on 

what level of aggregation we could provide 

data requests, and this is because we have 

some companies that request information 

from multiple observer programs, and we 

needed to have a standardized approach that 

we could all live with. We have now 

developed those policies. The data are 

available to the managers within 24 hours in 

some of the fisheries we observe, and 90 

days for the detailed data for other fisheries. 

We generally handle our requests. 

Our data requests are generally responded to 

between three hours and two weeks. We 

usually have a fast turn around time for data 

requests; it depends on the rule making 

process, and what’s going on at that time. 

Also, I presented over 150 slides and made 

presentations on this particular fishery, (the 

herring fishery) at council meetings and 

committee meetings to address fishers’ 

concerns of river herring bycatch. I would 

like to further emphasize that the lack of 

accurate and precise data that’s not being 

collected, is a result of the difficulty in 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 119
observing fishing operations and not the 

collection of observer data itself. 

Question/Comment 

Debra Duarte 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

 

Do you feel that the public’s right to the 

access of observer data supersedes the 

fisherman’s right to confidentiality of their 

trade secrets? 

Response 

Roger Fleming 

Earth Justice 

USA

I think it’s a balance. I think that, from our 

perspective, as I described it’s a public 

resource. I would tilt the balance in the 

favor of disclosure. I think that when you’re 

looking, for example when you’re going 

through the aggregation or summary process 

your concerns or specifically stated in the 

statute directly or indirectly, disclosing the 

identity or the business of any person. But I 

think you can provide pretty detailed 

information for the public without 

specifically identifying directly or indirectly 

the individual. It’s always been difficult for 

me to fully comprehend how, for example, 

providing relatively detailed information on 

where bycatch might be occurring. For 

example, how that might impact an entity’s 

commercial interest. So that’s my response, 

I would tilt the balance more toward 

disclosure unless it’s a specific statutory 

exemption. 

Comment 

Debra Duarte 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

Well, I’m the one that performed the 

aggregation for the case study you 

mentioned. So if you have any better ideas 

for how we could perform such aggregation 

in the future, I’d love to talk to you. 

Question/Comment 

Elizabeth Griffin 

Oceana 

USA

I do think the fish and the data are a public 

resource and should be treated as a public 

resource, so it concerns me to hear the 

speakers from the U.S. government talking 

about this process to put out new 

regulations. I’m concerned that there hasn’t 

been much public input in the process. 

Have you done any reaching out to 

stakeholders to see what NGOs and 

fishermen want from the data and what 

could be done within the constraints of the 

Magnuson Act to make the data useful to 

stakeholders? 

Response 

Keith Hagg 

NOAA General Counsel 

USA

I mentioned in my presentation, that NMFS 

is going to post revised regulations under 

section 402 that will tell the public how it is 

approaching the issues that we’re talking 

about now through revised regulations for 

the handling of confidential information 

under Magnuson. We have the requirement 

to maintain the confidentiality of the 

information and there are some exceptions 

to that requirement. The section of the act 

that we’re talking about is taking some time 

to revise, but I hope that this will come to a 

conclusion in the next couple months and 

we will issue a notice for public comment. 

We certainly want to see what the public has 

to say and all the interest groups that have 

any concerns. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 120
Response/ Comment

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Elizabeth, we do provide a lot of data 

summaries to NGOs, at the NGOs request. 

Multiple NGOs will request data. They do 

get the data in an aggregate form in a very 

fast turn around time. Aggregated refers to 

having three observed vessels within that 

strata, whatever that strata is, based on the 

level of data that they’re requesting. If it 

can’t be done with three trips then we roll it 

up to the next level to which it can be 

released. 

Response/ Comment 

Roger Fleming 

Earth Justice 

USA

This relates to the point that Elizabeth was 

making in her question, which is, 

essentially, public input on the process for 

use of and access to data. The agency talks 

about aggregation to the level of three 

vessels. I’m not sure how that was 

determined. I don’t think the public has had 

an opportunity to weigh in on that type of 

aggregation or aggregation by “area” either. 

I’d like to emphasize Elizabeth’s point, 

which is that the process can be improved 

through public involvement. Even hearing 

the comments from people from other 

countries here today has triggered a lot of 

different thoughts in my mind about how 

this can be improved. I strongly encourage 

the agency to get this out to the public for 

public input while it’s still in a relatively 

formative stage. 

Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

It does sound like we’re hearing from both 

sides, and I agree. I’d like to hear from a 

more international aspect. When I first 

started this session, I prefaced it by saying 

that the U.S. is walking a tight wire trying to 

have a nice balancing act, protecting the 

confidentiality of observer data while being 

responsive to data requests. While it might 

seem straightforward with our laws about 

whether or not data, observer data in 

particular, is releasable; there is, as Keith 

pointed out, some clarification on the 

regulation is needed. When that is 

completed, there will be an opportunity for 

the public to comment on it. 

Question/Comment 

Keith Davis 

Observer/APO Board Member 

USA

I’m speaking pretty much on behalf of 

Elizabeth Mitchell who was supposed to be 

on this panel. 

The way I understand that process, in 1994 

it started off the data being identifiable to a 

person. Then that evolved to the three boat 

rule restricting the public access to observer 

data from three or fewer vessels fishing 

within a 10 square nautical mile area. Now it 

seems like it’s becoming more restrictive as 

far as the rules would protect the identity of 

corporations or industry cooperatives, and I 

think that could really be very restrictive to 

the public access of the data. Single 

companies could fish an entire ecosystem 

and it wouldn’t fall under public scrutiny, as 

far as I understand it. For instance, in the 

North Pacific I’ve worked on vessels that 

have been in experimental areas where there 

are only one or two vessels in that area. It’s 

a new area where we’re catching species 

that – I don’t know – different stuff that may 

not even be categorized, way out in the 

western Aluetians, and that may be just one 

instance. I just wanted to follow-up with 

what Liz Mitchell stated in her abstract. It is 

only through transparency that the public 

develops trust in NOAA decisions to end 

over fishing and marine ecosystem 

destruction. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 121
As far as the cooperatives, can you make 

any sort of comment about is it moving 

toward restricting it to the public access to 

cooperatives and going beyond the three 

boat rule? 

Response 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

We have a couple of fisheries in the 

Northeast; the red crab fishery comes to 

mind. We do like to use the cooperative 

because it’s the identity of a business. So, 

there might be multiple vessels observed, 

but they are all owned by one vessel. 

Another fishery is the Menhaden Fishery in 

the Mid-Atlantic. When we say we don’t 

release the data or the data are confidential, 

it means that we don’t release the 

information on catch at a “tow by tow” or 

trip level. Linking the latitude and longitude, 

for example with catch information is 

something that we are trying to avoid doing 

by aggregating on a larger level. It is not 

that their information in unavailable, but that 

it can’t be released to the exact catch 

location or latitude and longitude. 

Question/Comment 

Keith Davis 

Observer/APO Board Member 

USA

I think by aggregating in some instances it 

could destroy the utility of the data at that 

level. 

Response 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Yes, and I think that’s what the concern is in 

public access. That information is directly 

available to the managers and to the 

scientists doing the stock assessments. 

Managers and scientists have that 

information at the detailed level. They have 

direct access through an access agreement. 

So they’re aware of it and they are 

performing the analysis. It’s just when the 

public wants to do their own analysis, that 

data at that level might not be available. 

Comment 

Jorgen Dalskov 

National Institute for Aquatic Resources 

Denmark 

 

As Bjorn Stockhausen mentioned, the 

European Union implemented a new data 

collection framework last year. According to 

this data collection framework, all members 

have to give open access to all data 

collected, not to primary data level but to 

detailed level. The difference between 

primary level and detailed level, that’s just 

the identity of the vessel. That means they 

almost have access to raw data. All member 

states have to deliver the data if someone 

applies for the data. All member states have 

to deliver the data within 20 working days. 

If member states don’t do that the financial 

support from the Commission, which is up 

to 50 percent of the total cost, can then 

reduce their support by two and a half 

percent. In Denmark the whole program is 

six million euros per yea, so if they deduct 

two and a half percent of the six million 

euros it will really be a problem for us. 

We’re facing that now. I’m pretty sure it 

will probably create chaos in all European 

countries but we’ll see. 

Question/Comment 

Steve Kennelly 

NSW Department of Primary IndustriesCronulla Fisheries Research Centre of 

Excellence 

Australia 

In my state, when people put freedom 

of information requests in they’re charged 

$50.00 for an administrative fee. When 

the request gets assessed, if it is estimated 

to cost much more than $50.00 to process 

it, a quote is given to the applicant. These 

can run into thousands of dollars. This 

tends to slow down bogus requests, allowing 

real ones to be dealt with. I was just 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 122
wondering if you have a similar situation 

where you charge for those sort of requests? 

Response 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Yes, we do. We’re able to charge fees for 

the FOIA requests. We generally haven’t 

done that but we can charge for any of the 

materials it costs and the hours that it would 

take to complete the request. The case study 

that Roger gave was actually not a FOIA. It 

was just a casual data request. All of our 

FOIAs do come with stringent guidelines. I 

think it is also a 20 day turn around. 

Comment/ Response 

Steve Kennelly 

NSW Department of Primary IndustriesCronulla Fisheries Research Centre of 

Excellence 

USA

And just one final thing, I just wondered at 

what point does the confidentiality 

protections on observer data, how that plays 

out in a criminal court if there’s a subpoena 

for data from an observer, for example, who 

is subpoenaed to give information. Is he 

protected using that law or is it required? If 

the judge directs him to give information, 

does he have to obey the subpoena? 

Response/ Comment 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

Yes. We release the information through a 

subpoena. 

Comment/Response 

Roger Fleming 

Earth Justice 

USA

Amy is correct about the charges. There are 

criteria for getting fees waived under U.S 

law. One of the things FOIA encourages 

agencies to do is once a data request has 

been made for those agencies is to make that 

data request public. That would be one way, 

for example, to potentially slow down the 

rate of the request. For a broad request, like 

in the case study, there’s a lot of information 

that was requested, and a lot of information 

that was provided. There may be several 

data requests that are completely avoided if 

that information is made easily accessible to 

the public. 

Response 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

And one last thing about the fees, the 

observer programs never see that money. 

I don’t know where it goes but it certainly 

doesn’t come to the program. 

Comment 

Lori Steele 

New England Fishery Management Council 

USA 

I’m the herring fishery management plan 

coordinator for the New England Fishery 

Management Council, so I am responsible 

for the development of this new amendment 

for catch monitoring in the Atlantic herring 

fishery and have been part of the process 

that Roger and Amy have referred to in their 

case study. I don’t really have a question, 

just a comment. I just wanted to 

acknowledge the hard work and long hours 

of labor that Amy and her group have done 

to contribute to the management process. In 

my opinion, Amy and her group have gone 

above and beyond to provide information to 

the public and to respond to all of the 

various needs and requests from everyone in 

the public for the data. 

I’ve seen the data provided at meetings, in 

letters, in papers, in memos, verbally, every 

which way possible and in response to just 

about every question I’ve ever seen asked of 

Amy and her group. I can’t even think of a 

way that the data could be provided that it 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 123
hasn’t already that would lend itself to the 

management process or to any of the 

stakeholders who are participating to try to 

help us develop a catch monitoring program 

that we’re developing in this fishery. I just 

want to recognize that because I don’t know 

how it works in other observer programs 

across the country but I do think that the 

fishery sampling branch in the northeast 

region goes out of their way to interact with 

the public and provide the information to the 

best of their ability within the constraints of 

the Magnuson Act. I truly believe that the 

process without Amy and her group would 

be far less transparent and much more 

difficult for all of the stakeholders involved. 

Question/Comment 

Lisa Borges 

European Commission 

Belgium 

I want to clarify what Jørgen discussed, 

before the Data Collection Regulation; 

basically we had a kind of “Freedom of 

Information Act” that we paid to have 

access to the data. We should have access to 

the data that we paid for, in a clear manner. 

The problem was when we requested data to 

be analyzed by scientists from the member 

states, they would not provide the data; they 

would say they had problems, or wouldn’t 

meet the deadlines. 

They would not share the data between 

scientists, and at the end we found ourselves 

(the Commission) not having a way to force 

them to provide the data that we had paid for 

and that was public. Then we made a 

change, we said if you do not provide the 

data, we will not give you funds. In all 

honesty it might cause a lot of problems for 

the institute; however, this was actually in 

accordance with all the scientists to ensure 

some of the countries make their data 

available to the entire scientific community 

in ICES. 

They had a lot of difficulty in getting data 

from colleagues because of national 

Administrations. This is the way that we, as 

the Commission, as the regulators found a 

way to put a little clause in the law. Now 

finally to say, you know what, if you do not 

give the data then we stop paying the 

money. And I suppose it’s a little bit of a 

stick, then pushing them to give the data. 

And we are hoping, we as the Commission, 

but mainly the scientists that work with us to 

provide scientific advice, that we will 

improve the access to the data that has been 

there that we’ve been paying for years. I 

wanted to make clear that we tried to be 

positive on this, thank you. 

Many scientists in ICES had difficulty in 

getting data from colleagues because of 

national demonstrations. So, this is a way 

that we as the European 

Commission/regulators decided to address 

accessing member countries’ data. If you 

don’t provide the data then we will stop 

providing the money. The European 

Commission and scientists that work with us 

to provide scientific advice hope to improve 

the access to data that we have been paying 

for, for years. 

Comment/Response 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

I find that an interesting approach. With the 

U.S. structure it would not work, because 

the scientists directly access our database. 

They can do their own data retrievals 

directly from our databases-(by signing an 

agreement). I was thinking about applying 

that approach to some other programs that 

collect data independently and that we have 

trouble obtaining information from, e.g., 

cooperative research programs. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 124
Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

A lot of our issues come in when nongovernment organization and the public 

want to do their own statistical analysis on 

the data without our input. Using our 

observer data that we use to determine 

management decisions for the resources and 

not having some input with private source 

wanting to do with their data can lend to 

some conflicting results. History has shown 

that we do want collaboration, without it 

progress can be slow to non-existent. 

Question/Comment 

Martin Loefflad

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I have partly a comment and partly a 

question. Confidentiality is a big issue for 

us in Alaska. It is the key to the cooperation 

we have had for 20 years with the industry. 

At the same time, we recognize the huge 

interests of our public in transparency. 

We’ve tried to balance that very fine edge, 

which I hear a lot of that same discussion 

going on today. It’s a tough one. There are 

no easy answers to it. Just a comment, 

though. My point being, we have for 20 

years tried to protect the confidentiality of 

that information, because it’s a big concern 

for our industry and the fact that we put 

people on their business operations out there 

floating around. 

That being said, we have a long history of 

getting as much as we can out there in the 

public record when our council is making 

decisions which impact everybody. At the 

same time, we’ve put an awful lot of our 

information out on the web, to the extent 

that we can when we aggregate it. You can 

Google us up. You can download it. You 

can see it. It’s there, to the extent that it’s 

aggregated. It does limit the information 

and I’ve heard that already. Just a comment 

is, again, anytime you talk about 

confidentiality you’re going to get multiple 

perspectives. I think Keith did a nice job of 

summarizing where NOAA is coming from. 

I just wanted to add to that just a little bit, 

which is that he mentioned there’s a 

proposed rule that he’s working on that 

should be coming out by the end of the 

summer. 

That’s a proposed rule for anyone not 

familiar with the U.S. government process 

that anyone in this room can comment on. 

The agency will then take those comments 

and distill them, respond to some. We’ll 

respond to every comment, basically, and 

use that in forming a final rule. That is a 

very important process because those 

comments actually matter. So I’d encourage 

anyone interested to comment on that rule. 

Last point is that in Alaska when there have 

been particular issues that have come up on 

a fairly small scale, there is a mechanism 

that if the industry is in agreement that they 

can actually release that information that we 

hold confidential. 

That’s a creative solution if you have an 

agreeable body that you’re working with. 

So you’re working gets harder the bigger 

you get. So the more people the harder it is 

to get agreement. But if you have 

agreement with people and those people 

want to put their stuff out in public they can 

sign a waiver with the agency and the 

agency will disclose it. So that’s an option 

for you, to consider. 

Response 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

We have recently created an access 

agreement. It hasn’t quite gone as far as 

voluntary disclosure of data to the public but 

voluntary disclosure of the detailed data to 

the fishing association. So that’s some 

progress there. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 125
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 126
Panel Session 6: 

What are the major factors impacting fisheries observers? 

Moderator: John Lafargue, NWFSC, National Marine Fisheries Service 

Speakers 

Alexander Woods – New Zealand 

Minimizing the risk to observers from foreign charter vessels operating in New Zealand’s EEZ. 

Jeffrey Pulver – USA 

Description and logistics of the U.S Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Observer Program. 

Simon Gulak – USA 

Multi-resistant bacteria: Concerns for observer programs and their field staff. 

Matthew Walia – USA 

Factors affecting observer safety in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Sandra Vieria – USA 

Anger management much? Using video dramatizations and hands on drills to desensitize observers with 

conflict and teach them how to resolve it successfully. 

Jennifer Lengares – USA 

Assisting observers in bridging the gap. 

Jennifer Patton and Mike Orcutt – Canada 

Observer support mechanisms. 

Cassandra Donovan – USA 

The art and science of juggling the increasingly complex observer workload. 

Introduction to the session 

This session explored a wide variety of factors that affects observers. It included everything from 

minimizing risk, safety concerns/health issues to fleet characteristics, outreach tools, support 

mechanisms and time management. As our observer programs mature and new ones sprout up, 

we all look to decrease the risk to observers as well as increase observer retention and data 

quality. The only way our programs can achieve these goals is to take a close look at the factors 

affecting our observers. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 127
 

Minimizing the risk to observers from foreign charter vessels 

operating in New Zealand’s EEZ 

Alexander J Woods 

 New Zealand School of Fisheries, Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology 

Nelson, New Zealand 

If an observer cannot be placed on a particular vessel because conditions on that vessel may 

constitute a risk to the observer’s health and welfare there is a risk that any fishing activities of 

that vessel that might pose a threat to the Quota Management System (QMS) will go unobserved. 

If the vessel operator says that only male observers can be carried because of deficient toilet or 

bathing facilities or lack of space this then compromises the equal opportunities obligations of the 

employer (Ministry of Fisheries) as well as making observer placement more difficult. 

It was clear that the work of the Ministry of Fisheries Observer Programme was being 

compromised by the range in nationality, age and design of some of the charter vessels operating 

in New Zealand and in October 2007 the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) and the Seafood Industry 

Council (representing stakeholders and quota owners) formed a joint Foreign Charter Vessel 

(FCV) review group tasked with identifying and addressing the risks associated with the current 

operation of FCVs in New Zealand’s (NZ) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).The perceived risks 

posed by the operation of some FCVs were two-fold: 

1. A risk to observer and fishery officer health and safety 

2. A risk that FCV operations would compromise the integrity of the NZ fisheries 

management regime 

MFish held the view that tighter control over the operation of FCVs was required. The review 

group was tasked with identifying potential solutions to these issues. However the scope of this 

paper is limited to addressing the risk to observer and fishery officer health and safety only. 

Methods 

By December 2007, a number of measures had been agreed upon by both parties and these 

formed the Initial Position Paper on the management of this issue. MFish announced its intention 

to consult with industry on these issues with a view to implementing a one year period for 

compliance to occur, starting on 1 June 2008. 

These measures included:

• All vessels >46m (both domestic and foreign flagged) to adhere to an approved standard 

of accommodation, food and amenities for observers (the Observer Standard) 

• Increased level of coverage onboard FCVs – the level of coverage to depend on the level 

of risk associated with that vessel 

• FCV vessel to submit valid vessel safety inspection certificates as part of their 

registration application, issued by Maritime NZ 

• FCVs that have operated in NZ waters for longer than 12 months to be in a Safe Ship 

Management (SSM) programme 

The Review Group met twice in the first half of 2008 to consider feedback from vessel operators 

and resolved to improve safety on board FCVs by: 

• Introducing an approved standard for observer food, safety and amenities 

• Implementing a process to ensure FCVs provide a safe working environment for MFish 

staff and contractors (this will include a pre-trip safety induction and personal safety 

check for each observer) 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 128
The review group met for the last time in May 2008 and in June MFish released its decision to 

industry. 

Results

The joint review group was of the opinion that this collaborative process had been successful and 

industry could work with the new observer standard and safety regime. The observer standard 

states that: 

• Observers must be provided with sufficient potable water and wholesome food for the 

duration of their trip 

• Sleeping accommodation must have unobstructed emergency escapes and have clear 

floor space of not less than 1.0 sq m 

• Minimum berth dimensions will be 6ft 3 inches by 2 ft 3 inches 

• Accommodation shall also contain both a reading and a working light, lockable clothes 

locker, table/desk/draw/seat, book rack and clothes hooks 

• Observers must have access to the galley outside meal times and abide by any health and 

safety requirements in place there 

• The galley shall be equipped with sufficient facilities, equipment and utensils to enable 

the observer to prepare hot and cold drinks and light meals 

• Toilet facilities must be clean, hygienic and lockable and equipped with adjacent wash 

hand basins with running water and soap dispensers 

• Toilet paper must be supplied and disposed of in a clean and hygienic manner 

• There must be clear headroom of not less than 1.9m at the observer work station 

All aspects of this standard were to be fully adopted by I July 2009. Failing to comply with the 

Standard is an offence under the Fisheries Act 1996 and may lead to prosecution. 

Description and logistics of the U.S Gulf of Mexico reef fish 

observer program 

*Jeffrey R. Pulver1and Elizabeth Scott-Denton2 

IAP World Services, Cape Canaveral, Florida, U.S.A.1, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Galveston, Texas, U.S.A.2 

Introduction

A mandatory observer program for the reef fish fishery was initiated for federal waters of the 

Gulf of Mexico in August of 2006, as dictated by Amendment 22 of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council’s Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan. There are approximately 887 

permitted vessels in the fishery1

. Most of these vessels have never carried an observer in the past 

and were unfamiliar with observer programs. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act provides the authority to mandatorily place observers aboard the vessels and 

requires that the vessel provide 48-hour notification prior to departing. Difficulties were 

encountered in the initial stage of the program due to vessel size, trip length, and gear type. The 

vessels selected departed from ports ranging from Brownsville, TX to Key West, FL a driving 

distance for observers of approximately 1,695 miles2

. The vessels ranged from 24 to 65 feet in 

length with trips varying from 1 to 20 days in duration3

. There are currently four different gear 

types utilized in the reef fishery; longline, bandit reel, handline and spearfishing. Each gear type 

required a different sampling protocol for the observer and varied by what species the vessel was 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 129
targeting. All of these obstacles have been overcome through creative ideas by staff and 

successful cooperation with the fishery to implement the reef fish observer program. 

Methods

The program randomly selected vessels quarterly based on season, gear, fishing effort and 

region3

. Permit holders were contacted by certified letter and, if necessary, by phone if no 

response was received regarding the certified letter. Once onboard, the sampling protocol was to 

obtain latitude, longitude, depth, environmental parameters and detailed gear information for each 

set during the entire trip. The observers identified every fish caught to species level if possible. 

Length and weight for each fish was obtained prioritizing undersized and non-target species first 

as not to affect mortality of released fish. The condition of fish when boarded was recorded 

based on appearance, whether alive or dead, and if there was a stomach/air bladder and/or eyes 

protruding. Finally, a fate was obtained for each fish caught and the mortality of discarded 

species was determined based on a sink or swim methodology once the fish was released. All 

protected species interactions were documented as well. 

Results/Discussion

Based on archived data from August 2006 through May 2008, in the longline fishery, the vessels 

covered by the program ranged from 36 to 65 feet with an average length of 46.4 feet3

. In the 

vertical line fishery (both bandit reel and handline combined) the vessels ranged from 24 to 65 

feet with an average length of 38.4 feet3

. The diversity of vessel size makes living conditions on 

board the vessels highly variable, as many are not able to accommodate an observer without some 

compromise to the crew. Usually this requires the observers to bring their own sleeping 

accommodations, such as a mattress or sleeping bag. From August 2006 through May 2008, 

there were 31 longline trips on 28 unique vessels for a total of 649 sets and 353 sea days3

. In this 

same time period, there were 110 trips in the vertical line fishery on 72 unique vessels for a total 

of 2,708 sets and 445 sea days3

. Longline trips, in this same period, ranged from 4 to 20 days 

with an average of 11.4 days and in the vertical line fishery from 1 to 17 days with an average of 

4.0 days3

. Since space can be very limited on these vessels, it is necessary for the observer to 

bring the minimal amount of sampling gear required as dictated by the length of the trip. On 

longline trips it is possible to obtain data for the entire trip (i.e., every fish recorded for each set) 

unless hampered by illness or weather conditions. However, for the vertical line fishery this is 

not always possible due to what species the vessel is targeting (generally either snapper or 

grouper). The grouper fishery is usually able to be 100% sampled by observers as most reels 

utilize 1-2 hooks. However, in the snapper fishery vessels routinely use reels that utilize 20-40 

hooks with up to 7 reels fished at once3

. On these vessels it is necessary for the observer to 

subsample the reels while recording the entire fishing effort of the vessel so the total catch can be 

extrapolated for the set. In summary, a successful observer program has been initiated in a 

complex and difficult fishery. 

Notes: 

1. NOAA Southeast Regional Office. 2008. 

2. Google maps. 2009. 

3. Scott-Denton, E., P. Cryer, J. Gocke, M. Harrelson, J. Pulver, C. Smith, R. Smith, and J. Williams. 

2009. Observer coverage of the reef fish fishery in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (in preparation). 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 130
Multiresistant bacteria: Concerns for observer programs and 

their field staff 

Simon J. B. Gulak 

IAP World Services, NMFS Panama City Lab, Florida, USA 

Introduction 

Since the introduction of antibiotics into clinical use, bacteria have evolved resistance 

mechanisms. Hospitals provided a selective environment with intensive use of antibiotics and 

lower immune response of patients. Monoclonal outbreaks led to endemism of certain strains. 

Currently, the most important resistance problems on a global scale are caused by methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This bacterium is now being passed throughout 

communities on a regular basis, earning the classification “Community-associated MRSA” by the 

United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention1

. 

The observer programs in the southeastern United States have a history of covering small fishing 

operations. The majority of vessels are not larger than 21 meters, with many less than 15 meters. 

Around the clock fishing, cramped living conditions and inadequate hygiene facilities increase 

the susceptibility to infection of all those onboard, including the observer. 

Methods 

After bacterial infections in 2006 and early 2007, information concerning S. aureus was gathered 

from observer programs, medical professionals, U.S. C.D.C. and peer reviewed journal 

publications. The Panama City observer programs began incorporating training presentations to 

increase the awareness of field staff to MRSA, with prevention as the main goal. Hibiclens 

surgical scrub, Hibistat2

 wipes, hand sanitizing gels (for water short situations) and finger nail 

brushes were added to field equipment. Through cooperative effort, safety protocol was 

standardized by 2008 among the three programs in the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 

Results/Discussion 

The majority of infections occurred in 2007 (four infections in 3004 sea days, Fig. 1). 

Introduction of hygiene protocols led to fewer infections in the subsequent year (two infections in 

4403 seadays). Cases that manifested after a deployment and/or, for various reasons, were not 

reported are not presented. 

Once MRSA has established itself on a fishing vessel, staphylococcal life characteristics hinder 

disinfection and allow subsequent reinfection as a trip progresses. Trip length varies between one 

and 50 days and can delay proper treatment significantly. If passed to the observer, resistant 

bacteria can survive indefinitely in the nostrils and future infection can occur after returning from 

sea. 

Aspirin has been found to reduce the virulence of Staphylococcus spp.

3

. However observer 

programs cannot recommend the use of over the counter medications. Individual hygiene and 

respect of protocol is ultimately the responsibility of the observer. This fact and the contagious 

environment at sea guarantee that bacterial infections will remain an issue with field staff. 

Upon serious infection, treatment is limited to medical professionals on land. Minor infections are 

treated with triple antibiotic ointment and kept as clean and dry as possible. The Panama City 

programs are currently investigating the use of honey4

, which has been shown to inhibit growth of 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 131
18 strains of MRSA and 28 strains of Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE)5

. Although there 

have been no confirmed cases, VRE and/or Vancomycin-resistant S. aureus is may be a source of 

infection aboard fishing vessels in the future. 

Figure 1 Infections per seaday in southeast U.S. observer programs from 2000-2008 

Notes: 

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/. Last accessed: 11 June 2009. 

2. Hibiclens & Hibistat. http://www.hibigeebies.com/. Last accessed: 11 June 2009. 

3. Herrmann, M. 2003. Salicylic acid: an old dog, new tricks, and staphylococcal disease. Journal of 

Clinical Investigation. 112(2): 149-151. 

4. Jeffrey, A. E., and C. M. Echazerreta. 1996. Medical uses of honey. Rev. Biomed. 7: 43-49. 

5. Cooper, R. A., Molan, P. C., and K. G. Harding. 2002. The sensitivity to honey of Gram-positive cocci 

of clinical significance isolated from wounds. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 93:857-863 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 132
Factors affecting observer safety in the Gulf of Mexico 

Matthew K. Walia1 and Lawrence R. Beerkircher2 

IAP World Services, Cape Canaveral, Florida, USA1, 

NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida, USA2

Commercial fishing is an inherently dangerous profession, as repeatedly documented by the 

United States’ Department of Labor1

. While many recognize the dangers of working in northern 

temperate waters, such as the North Atlantic or the Bering Sea, there may be a complacency 

regarding safety in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Numerous factors typical of commercial fishing 

operations in the GOM can contribute to this complacency such as warmer waters2

, lack of 

survival suit requirements3

 and the predominantly smaller size of vessels that have no head 

facilities on board. In order to complete their duties and come home safely, fisheries observers 

must be prepared and knowledgeable about fishing fatalities. The objective of this study is to 

understand factors regarding fishing vessel loss, fatalities and how these are related to the GOM 

in regards to two other areas of fisheries importance, the North Atlantic and Bering Sea. 

Methods

Historical data of occupational fatalities, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was reviewed in 

order to highlight the dangers of the three most dangerous occupations from 2002-2007. The 

number of fatal work injuries/employment* 100,000 was calculated to get a fatality rate. Fishing 

vessel losses and fatalities were also reviewed from United States Coast Guard4

 districts in the 

GOM versus the North Atlantic and Bering Sea from 1992-2007. 

Results/Discussion

Over the course of 16 years, 1,903 American flagged fishing vessels were lost. 57% of the lost 

vessels occurred in the three areas of interest- the Bering Sea, GOM and North Atlantic. Over half 

of the total fishing vessel losses was reported to have occurred while in a non-fishing mode i.e. 

transiting, out/inbound and drifting. Observers must be aware of any dangers at all times, not just 

while fishing operations are being conducted. During this time period, the GOM ranked second 

highest in numbers of lost fishing vessels and fatalities. Of the 934 documented fatalities in all 

districts, 58% occurred in the three areas of concern. Water exposure was the highest cause of 

death overall, while 217 deaths were due to man-overboard incidents throughout all districts. The 

GOM has had the highest percentage of falls overboard throughout the stated time period, 

accounting for 35% of total falls overboard. The GOM is the only district to report falls 

overboard every year, which should cause concern for personal safety. Common situations in 

which an observer may find themselves, such as being alone on deck, losing balance, and 

working in inclement weather, are associated with falls overboard and safety in general5

. High 

rates of man-overboard incidents, fishing vessel loss and the possibility of hypothermia in the 

GOM should raise concern. While the majority of water exposure fatalities were due to the vessel 

sinking, flooding or capsizing, an observer can control such events as man-overboard incidents by 

staying alert and prepared. In contrast to the Bering Sea or North Atlantic, an observer working in 

the GOM is usually on an exposed back deck more often to clean themselves and use the 

restroom “facilities”. Staying away from gunwales when possible and keeping one hand for the 

boat along with proper use of standard issued safety equipment, such as wearing a personal 

flotation device (PFD) when alone on the deck6

, are essential in helping an observer complete 

their duties properly and safely. Observers can also create personal “man-overboard kits” 

including personal locator beacons, signal mirrors, and other visual/audio distress signals, which 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 133
can be easily attached to a PFD. The need to be diligent and alert at all times is necessary for an 

observer during their deployment. One has to be aware of the potential for disaster and remember 

that this is a dangerous profession regardless of where they are working. 

Notes: 

1. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002-2007. National census of fatal occupational 

injuries. www.bls.gov/iif/. 

2. National Oceanographic Data Center [NODC]. 2005. World Ocean Atlas. 

3. U.S. Federal Register. 1992. Commercial fishing industry vessel regulations. 57:149, 34188-34190. 

4. Dickey, H. David. 2008. Analysis of fishing vessel casualties: a review of lost fishing vessels and crew 

fatalities, 1992-2007. United States Coast Guard. Office of Investigations and Analysis, 51p. 

5. Lucas, D.L. and, J.M. Lincoln. 2007. Fatal falls overboard on commercial fishing vessels in Alaska. 

American Journal of Industrial Medicine 50(12): 962-968. 6. Beerkircher, L., K. Keene, S.Cushner, and J. Barker. 2009. Pelagic observer program field manual. 

NOAA. NMFS-SEFSC. 

Anger management much? Desensitizing observers to conflict 

and teaching them how to resolve it successfully 

Sandra M. Vieira1

*, Eli Coplen2

Alaskan Observers Incorporated, West Coast Groundfish Observer, Oregon, USA1

, 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Morro Bay, California, USA2 

Introduction

Conflict is a familiar occurrence in the interpersonal communications between observers and 

fishing vessel crew. Unresolved conflicts can lead to an uncomfortable or unsafe environment for 

observers. Handling both minor and major conflicts quickly and effectively is fundamental to 

maintain the important communication lines between observer and crew. It is important for 

programs to train observers how to recognize different levels of conflict and techniques on how to 

reach a resolution. Teaching observers how to read and recognize both verbal signals and body 

language will help them understand the premise of a potential conflict and allows the observer to 

choose a technique to best handle the dispute amicably. It is equally important for observers to 

practice various scenarios and to utilize roll playing in order to gain experience and build 

confidence. Practicing different scenarios will help observers avoid a conflict in the first place. 

Observers may be able to assess the principle reason for the conflict, clarify the concern and 

return the environment to a safe and acceptable workplace for the observer and crew. In the West 

Coast Groundfish Observer Program, training includes teaching the observers how to recognize 

conflict, showing different techniques to resolve conflicts and role-playing activities where the 

observers practice conflict resolution with fellow observers and staff. This presentation will 

focus on the variety of tools that can be used by observer programs to teach conflict resolution. 

Methods

To prepare WCGOP observers for the possibility of a conflict the West Coast Groundfish 

Observer Program’s Communication and Conflict Management lesson plan now included in-class 

lecture, video dramatization and role play activity. 

The objectives of this three part lesson plan include: 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 134
• How to recognize a potential conflict 

• Understanding the origin of conflict and how one can resolve the conflict with carefully 

considered responses 

• Reading body language 

• Identifying differences between passive, aggressive, and assertive communication 

• Communicating assertively when presented with resistance and conflict 

• Demonstrating effective communication strategies to de-escalate and resolve conflict 

• Realizing that resolving, not winning, the conflict is the key 

• Showing various methods to contemplate when considering the best way to diffuse a 

conflict 

• Desensitizing observers to hostile circumstances 

• Returning an observer’s work environment to a safe and civil condition 

Results/Discussion

The trainees were first introduced to an informational lecture by staff to describe all the elements 

to a conflict situation. The new video dramatization was then shown to present how these events 

could take place in an at-work scenario, addressing common conflict scenarios between observers 

and fishing crew, to show new observers how volatile and different a conflict with fishermen may 

be from their day-to-day relationships. The video’s storyboard was written in an entertaining 

format including, cartoon characters as the videos’ trainers, different observer personalities were 

acted out to show the results of aggressive, passive and assertive interactions and selected music 

was played during the point of information slides appropriate to the scenario. Finally the trainees 

had an opportunity to role play scenarios that are typically seen in an observer’s line of duty. 

This allows the observers to practice different methods of communication and to help desensitize 

them from hostile interactions. At the conclusion of the training module current WCGOP 

observers were available to field questions from the trainees as well as share their experiences at 

sea in regard to conflict scenarios encountered and how they were able to resolve them 

successfully. 

An anonymous questionnaire was returned by each of the fourteen trainees asking their opinions 

on this training module. More than 85% found they were better prepared to encounter and 

address conflict and now had the tools necessary to resolve a work-related conflict successfully. 

All trainees found the video opened their eyes to what they may experience in the field. 100% 

felt this conflict resolution training class is relevant to the job skills they will use as an observer. 

And more than 90% found the lesson plan ratio of lecture, video and role play activity appropriate 

to learning this subject. 

The trainees also had an opportunity to express their thoughts on improving all aspects to the 

training materials used in this module. Their suggestions have inspired the trainers of this module 

to continue to adjust and improve the lesson plan to better coach future WCGOP observers. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 135
Assisting observers in bridging the gap 

Jennifer Lengares 

A.I.S., Inc., New Bedford, Massachusetts, USA 

Introduction 

Observers are often fielding questions from the general public regarding seafood purchases. As 

an objective scientific source of information, the observer can seem an unbiased opinion 

compared to other resources. Not enough resources are available for observers to turn to when 

confronted with a question regarding seafood choices. Observers in the Northeast region of the 

United States undergo extensive training before taking their positions. None of that training 

focuses on, or addresses handling a confrontation with the public. Additionally, the resources 

available, such as the three websites examined in this paper, do not offer enough information to 

address all of the questions raised by the general public1

. Additional resources and training need 

to be made available to resolve this issue, and offer observers a better resource. 

Methods

A survey of the general public was conducted regarding the type of seafood people purchased and 

why. Survey participants were selected randomly with the only requirement being that the 

respondent purchased seafood “regularly” defined as having purchased seafood for consumption 

within the last two months, and having intention to purchase seafood in the future. Surveys were 

then compiled and the percentage of positive responses was calculated. Once determined, the data 

gathered was compared to the available information on three websites: 

 Fish Watch (http://www.nmfs.gov/fishwatch/) 

 Environmental Defense Fund Seafood Selector (http://www.edf.org/home.cfm), and 

 Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch (http://www.montereybayaquarium.org). 

Websites were chosen by performing an internet search for a site that would assist consumers in 

making educated decisions regarding seafood purchases. This helped determine if the needs of the 

people being surveyed were being properly addressed by the websites. Additionally, a survey 

was conducted with observers operating out of the Northeast Observer Program, U.S.A and 

employed by A.I.S., Inc. to determine if they felt their was a need for more accessible sources of 

information, and if they had experienced people turning to them as Fisheries Observers to assist 

in their seafood choices. 

 

Results/Discussion

Results from the public surveys showed that; 91.16% of people listed taste as a reason for 

choosing a particular type of seafood, 64.02% listed price, 40.19% listed possible presence of 

mercury or other pollutants, 25.70% listed sustainability of the fishery, 22.90% listed a 

recommendation from someone else, and 6.07% listed unspecified other. Of the surveys returned 

19.16% of the people responded that they had heard of the National Marine Fisheries Service 

Fisheries Observer Program, and 17.29% had heard of at least one of the three websites 

examined. When given the following description of the program, 78.04% of survey respondents 

indicated that they thought the program would provide them with information to assist them in 

their seafood choices. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 136
“The objectives of the Fisheries Observer Program are to collect operational 

fishing data, biological data, and economic data from the various fisheries. 

Additionally observers monitor interactions with protected and endangered 

species to ensure continued survival of these animals2

”

Of observers surveyed, 90.91% would like to see more resources made available, and 72.73% 

responded that they had heard of at least one of the three websites examined. 59.10% of observers 

surveyed have been asked questions regarding seafood choices since becoming an observer. Of 

surveyed observers 54.55% responded that they felt being an observer gave them an added insight 

in to fishing industry, where 45.45% felt that they only see a small portion of the industry and the 

information that they collect was not extensive enough to use as a definitive source. 

 

Based on the feed back from the surveys, the general public sees the observer program as a 

possible source of information for their seafood choices. Many of the topics addressed by the 

public surveys were available on the websites3

, but only a small percentage of the public had 

heard of the websites. Observers felt that on one hand, they had an insight to the fishing industry, 

but that it was a small part and did not necessarily reflect the status of the fishery as a whole. 

Considering that observers knew of the websites, but still felt that they would like to see more 

resources made available indicated that websites do not offer enough of a solution. During 

surveying, the general public often commented that they would not likely go to a website to look 

for information, and that it would be more useful if readily available. 

Possible solutions to this problem include better training, and more resources readily available to 

observers. As part of the training course for the Northeast Observer Program, observers are 

trained in conflict resolution as it relates to captains and crew. There is no training however in 

dealing with the general public. Incorporating resources for observers during the training period 

may alleviate some of the issues that they confront once they enter their positions. The observer 

program has to maintain a level of neutrality to preserve objectivity making it difficult to 

recommend resources that may not be government approved. A newsletter to observers may 

provide a solution. If observers are given information supported by the program, they can feel 

confident passing this information along to others. 

Notes: 

1. Personal Observation. Jennifer Lengares. http://www.nmfs.gov/fishwatch/, http://www.edf.org/home.cf, 

http://www.montereybayaquarium.org 

2. http://nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/ 

3. Personal Observation. Jennifer Lengares. http://www.nmfs.gov/fishwatch/, http://www.edf.org/home.cf, 

http://www.montereybayaquarium.org 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 137
Observer support mechanisms 

*Mike Orcutt1, and Jen Paton1

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., Victoria, British Columbia, Canada1

Introduction

Some key challenges faced by our At Sea Observers include; difficult lifestyle, difficult crew 

interactions, work and personal life stress, and the perceived lack of professional and/or personal 

growth. Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. has developed a variety of programs and services to 

help our staff overcome these challenges. 

Methods

Effective communication and conflict resolution is part of our three-week training course. It is 

designed to help boost the Observers’ confidence levels when they encounter difficult crew 

interactions. Other topics help the Observer identify their own stress triggers and ways to manage 

stress. Scenarios’ based training provides an opportunity to prepare the Observers for some of the 

real-life situations they may encounter. 

Health and wellness programs are offered by Archipelago to provide support to full-time 

equivalent staff and their families. Beyond standard benefits packages there are a number of 

wellness benefits that Observers are encouraged to utilize. Many of these benefits can be accessed 

while they are in port between assignments when it is often needed most. The package reimburses 

a number of what we call “good for the head” benefits, including massage treatments, 

acupuncture, and various alternative therapies. One of the more popular aspects is the annual 

reimbursement for healthy living activities such as gym memberships, fitness classes or personal 

interest courses. 

Archipelago has had a Critical Incident Peer Support (CIS) program in place since 1998. The 

initial goal of the program was to provide timely support to employees who are involved in 

critical incidents at work. As the program evolved it was realized that work related incidents are 

only a part of our employees overall well being, and often support is provided for personal issues 

rather than work related issues. An external service provider is contracted to provide training to 

the volunteer peer support team, consisting of program staff, supervisors, and fellow observers. 

The peer support team is used to assist employees and their families with obtaining the 

professional counseling and support that they need. There are a number of different options that 

observers can use to access the professional counseling services including a 24-hour emergency 

phone line, in-person counseling and email counseling. 

Archipelago recognizes the need to be flexible in how we schedule Observer staff deployment. 

The standard is a 24 day rotation in one of three main ports, followed by 7 days off at home. 

During the 24 day deployment Observers average three, 5-7 day assignments. Another option for 

observer staff is to relocate to one of the main deployment ports. Port residents have greater 

access to work, and are able to be at home in between assignments. Archipelago also employs 

several casual or part time staff. These individuals are called upon for special projects, and during 

peaks in activity. Archipelago’s staff are employees rather than contractors, so Observers are free 

to change the model they work under as their needs change. Giving Observers the option of 

which model they work under provides them time they need for their personal lives. From a 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 138
program management perspective, having 

Observers in all of these categories can be very 

beneficial for meeting fluctuations in activity 

caused by weather and market conditions. 

Keeping staff motivated and rested ensures 

quality data collection and high-levels of 

service to our clients. Allowing leaves of 

absence for attending school or other types of 

training has been effective at restoring staff. 

Archipelago also provides long-term time-off 

for either travel or family commitments, where 

the employee may return to work at the same 

rate of pay and seniority. 

Archipelago also conducts dockside monitoring 

and electronic monitoring work. Providing 

training for at sea Observers to work within 

Archipelago’s other programs promotes work 

diversity, and allows at sea observers to 

supplement their work at sea. The cross training 

helps with temporary staffing solutions when 

these other programs require staff. 

Recognizing Observers for their service, hard 

work, and contributions is a key component to maintaining a long-term commitment from staff. 

We have one, five and ten year milestone recognition programs, the coveted 1000 sea day award, 

as well as a personal gift rewards program for exceptional performance. 

Mike Orcutt 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

Results/Discussion

Understanding the issues faced by observer staff is the first step to being able to provide effective 

support. Once the issues are identified, it is necessary to either create or find the appropriate 

support tools and resources required to help staff with their challenges. 

Providing an effective and complete support system is key to ensuring a healthy and productive 

work environment. 

The art and science of juggling the increasingly complex 

observer work load 

Vanessa J. Tuttle *Presented by Cassandra Donovan 

NOAA Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, At-Sea Hake Observer 

Program, Seattle, Washington, USA 

Introduction

Recent developments in the at-sea Pacific hake fishery have led to catch restrictions on several 

bycatch species which have changed the nature of the fishery and necessitated changes in the AtProceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 139
Sea Hake Observer Program (A-SHOP). In addition, increased interest about the types and 

quantity of data being collected by the observers has driven changes as well. 

The result is an increasingly complex work load, which now requires the observers to be more 

involved in making minute-by-minute decisions about their sampling, and to prioritize and 

manage their time. The increase in data collection has created new challenges for the observers 

and has required the A-SHOP to make changes in the sampling protocols, provide new sampling 

tools, and to modify aspects of the observer training. 

Methods

Historically, observers have collected vessel and haul information, species composition samples, 

marine mammal and endangered species samples and sighting data, and biological data from the 

target species. Recent additions to the data collection include a significant increase in species 

composition sample sizes, biological data on an additional seven bycatch species, coded wire tag 

data and samples from salmonids, genetic samples on two different species, and occasional 

special projects for additional data. 

In the past, the observers were generally able to complete all of their assigned duties for almost 

every haul. However, with increased sampling demands, this is no longer the case. Observers are 

a very hard working group of people, and most of them find it difficult to not attempt every task 

that is assigned, on every haul. Prioritizing data collections and emphasizing that not all tasks are 

going to be manageable on all hauls has proven to be a challenging idea for some observers. 

Results/Discussion

The A-SHOP has tried to ease the sampling burden in six distinct ways. 

1. Ensure all data collection is appropriate and useful. Yearly evaluations with the data 

users help confirm that the data collection is relevant and meets their needs. 

2. Carefully consider new data collection requests for feasibility. 

3. Teach observers to prioritize their sampling effort and collect at least the minimum data 

necessary from every haul. As time allows collect additional data on important bycatch 

species. 

4. Modify sampling protocols in-season to ensure target biological data goals are met and 

not exceeded. 

5. Highlight time management by using real-life sampling scenarios during training. 

6. Develop tools and techniques to streamline observer sampling. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 140
 

Sample Size Increase

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

year

percent (%) of total catch

Figure 1. Average species composition sample size by year

 

 

Pairs of otoliths collected

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

year

pairs of otoliths

rockfish

hake

The A-SHOP is continually evolving and changing to help the observers adapt to the increased 

sampling demand. The primary goal is to help ensure that the highest quality data is collected, 

along with a reasonable maximum amount of data, without causing observer fatigue. 

Figure 2. Biological data collection for hake and rockfish bycatch by year

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 141
 

 

Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Comment/Question 

Larry Beerkircher 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

My question is for Sandra. It’s a fantastic 

conflict resolution thing you all put together. 

You said you just implemented it relatively 

recently. I was wondering, I know your last 

slide had some feedback from the observers 

but I wonder if there’s been any direct 

feedback from observers coming back from 

trips yet that have been in conflict situations 

where they’ve actually been able to give you 

feedback and say, “Yes, this absolutely 

helped me in this instance.” 

Response 

Sandra Vieira 

West Coast Groundfish Observer Program 

USA

No, I haven’t received direct information 

about that. I’m sure that they’re using it or 

else they would probably knock me over my 

head and say none of that stuff has worked 

for me. People have a tendency to always 

complain about something just naturally 

rather than go back and take the time and 

thank someone or to commend them for 

what they gave to them. 

Continuation of Question/Comment 

Larry Beerkircher 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

When you implement a new training regime 

like that do you try to ask in debriefings 

whether that training has been helpful when 

they come back from a trip? 

Response 

Janell Majewski 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

We’ll probably just include questions in the 

end of the year surveys that we give to the 

observers about conflict resolution training 

and how it worked for them on the boats. 

Question/Comment 

Joe Arceneaux 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I have somewhat of a statement for Ms. 

Lengares in her presentation about the 

concerns about health and seafood. I thought 

your topic was rather interesting because 

like you said, many people get those 

requests. With alot of fishery management 

agencies, NMFS, DFO, there are some very 

active and dedicated outreach groups. I did 

like your comment that was drifting towards 

just direct people to find the information 

themselves. Your point is well taken that 

just direct people to the places where they 

can find the information themselves and 

then just go from there. Let them make their 

own decisions. Hopefully as observers, 

you’ll know which scientists you can best 

direct them to, because there are a lot of 

very dedicated, hardworking scientists that 

work on these issues. 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 142
Question/ Comment 

Chris Heinecken 

Capricorn Fisheries Monitoring 

South Africa

My question is directed at Alec It’s to do 

with safety at sea, and it evolves around 

what you always consider the observers 

right to refuse to board a vessel, and looking 

at different safety standards and especially 

on some of the foreign vessels, as Alex 

showed. 

I wanted to know in New Zealand do you 

have a minimum safety requirement before 

an observer is allowed to board a vessel? 

We’ve set up some protocols along these 

lines, keeping in mind that observers are not 

surveyors. They can not be considered as a 

judge whether the vessel is safe or not. So 

we can give them minimum requirements. 

I’m wondering if those exist outside our 

program. 

Response 

Alec Woods 

Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology 

New Zealand

Thanks for the question. Yes, it’s a 

complicated area. We have a range of steps 

that are gone through as a result of this new 

standard being put in place. To start with 

there’s an observer pre-departure checklist. 

There’s a vessel safety induction that the 

observer goes through with a crew member, 

senior crew member usually or master and 

then the observer goes through a predeparture checklist. If at the end of that they 

decide that they don’t want to sail or that 

they have concerns, then they’re told to raise 

those concerns with the vessel or with the 

observer program ashore. They will, in turn, 

raise the concern with Maritime New 

Zealand, which is our equivalent of the 

Coast Guard here, and they can refuse to sail 

on that vessel. 

The vessel will then be told of the problem. 

They’ll be given a chance to fix that or 

maybe take another observer onboard. But 

if it gets to the stage where the concern is 

still out there then it’s going to be a fairly 

serious matter, and Maritime New Zealand 

will want to have that fixed before that 

vessel goes to sea. At the end of the trip 

there’s another trip report that is done. The 

information that’s gathered in all these 

forms are part of the briefing that future 

observers will receive when they go out on 

that particular vessel. 

And I should also add that when a new 

vessel comes into New Zealand and wants to 

fish, there’s a very rigorous inspection 

undertaken by a fisheries officer as to the 

suitability of that vessel. It gets a risk 

categorization of high, medium or low risk, 

and that vessel can move from its position 

on those tiers depending on how it performs 

and how it improves. So it’s not a simple 

answer, I’m afraid. But there is a process. 

Comment/Question 

Chris Heinecken 

Capricorn Fisheries Monitoring 

South Africa

If I may, I’d like to comment a bit on that. 

We have a similar process for our South 

African licenses but the foreign vessels 

don’t go through the same safety checks for 

the South African Maritime Safety 

Association. We also have a similar 

situation where we’re flying observers to 

other countries where they are to board 

vessels. In some cases, they’ll board a vessel 

by launch, and they don’t have the 

opportunity or there’s no opportunity prior 

for a formal authority to inspect those 

vessels. What we’ve set up is a 

memorandum of understanding with 

whomever the organization is who’s 

requested the observer. 

We’ve actually highlighted minimum safety 

requirements and these are pretty much 

black and white situations. They cover 

things like life rafts, life jackets, crew 

compliment, and the observer actually has a 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 143
very strict instruction. If any of those 

criteria are not met he may not board the 

vessel. I’m wondering how other countries 

will follow this model, because observer 

safety is paramount. I think from somebody 

who employs observers, you don’t want to 

have an observer’s life on your conscious. 

These black and white situations or 

absolutes mean that the observer, the 

decision is taken away from him. If a life 

raft is not certified, if it’s not in date, if there 

aren’t sufficient life rafts or emergence seats 

onboard; he’s actually got a very fixed 

instruction. He may not board that boat and 

he has to return to shore. 

Response/Comment 

Cassandra Donovan 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

With the Hake program, we have a preboarding vessel safety checklist as well 

that’s based on the Alaska program, and I 

know the west coast program has a similar 

checklist. It’s actually black, white and 

blue. And the blue ones are highlighted, and 

those are the no go. So if anything that’s a 

no go item does not meet those standards – 

and it’s EPERBS, life rafts, that kind of 

thing – if they don’t have that then the 

observer does not board the vessel period. 

In the Hake program, we don’t have 

boarding at sea incidents. They always 

board at the dock, but they complete the 

safety checklist before the vessel can leave 

the dock. All of our vessels are Coast Guard 

inspected every two years, and they have to 

have that Coast Guard sticker. That’s one of 

the criteria before they can actually go on 

the vessel. 

Question/Comment 

Floor Quirijns 

Netherlands Fisheries Research Institute 

Netherlands 

Several of my colleagues go onboard fishing 

vessels to do all sorts of projects, and what 

they ask us researchers is, “Do you have 

some useful information we can have so that 

we know what’s going on at the Research 

Institute”? Fishers ask a lot of questions 

about, the stocks, what kind of projects are 

you doing and what can we expect for the 

next TSE advice and all sorts of things. I’m 

sort of looking for the right thing to do with 

this because we’re doing a lot of projects. 

It’s impossible to put all the information into 

short paper pieces that they can bring with 

them. I would like to ask you if you have 

experience with this issue. I would direct 

this question to Jennifer since she touched 

upon this issue a bit, but welcome responses 

from others as well. 

Response/Comment 

Jennifer Lengares 

A.I.S., Inc. 

USA 

I just wanted to clarify; you’re speaking 

about information available to fishermen in 

regards to current stock assessments? 

Question/Comment 

Floor Quirijns 

Netherlands Fisheries Research Institute 

Netherlands 

Yes. You talked about people around you, 

family, friends who are asking all kinds of 

questions about fisheries and fish. In my 

experience, it’s also the other way around. 

Because you’re onboard of a fishing vesselin the Netherlands it’s for one week or 

multiple weeks – you get a lot of questions 

by the fishermen and the crew. 

Response 

Jennifer Lengares 

A.I.S., Inc. 

USA 

I think in the northeast United States, it 

appears that there is a lot of resources that 

the fishermen go to retrieve information 

regarding the stocks. I think it relates more 

to what was discussed on the last panel. 

Particularly to Amy who works up in the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 144
office had said, that there are ways to get 

certain types of observer data from that. So 

personally, most of the fishermen I run into 

think they know exactly how the stocks are 

doing because they experience it everyday. 

A lot of fishermen I run into are much more 

confident than I am, in terms of knowledge 

of the ocean. 

Personally, I have only had experiences 

regarding the general public and the gap 

between the fishing industry and the public. 

I think that there are a lot of other resources 

that they turn to. I’m not entirely sure what 

they are but I think the data that comes from 

the observer program could maybe be put 

into a resource for fishermen. This way they 

are getting accurate stock assessments as 

opposed to the public, which usually looking 

for easier answers. I think that it would kind 

of depend on what they are looking for. It 

seems to me a better idea for fishermen to 

try to get more accurate information than 

what we could provide the public with. 

Question/Comment 

Ebol Rojas 

Association for Professional Observers 

USA 

Besides many others in 2007, one observer 

died in Alaska, In 2008, another from Costa 

Rica and Nicaragua. His body was really 

never recovered. This year, one Spanish boat 

sank off of New Foundland, another in 

Argentina and another in South Georgia. My 

question is “What are the barriers for the 

implementation scheme for the investigation 

and monitoring of all these safety issues 

affecting observers, as a tool for learning 

from these lessons and improving training, 

and safety conditions? 

Response 

John Lafargue 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Most of the programs are starting to 

document a lot of this information on their 

own. We do not really have a lot of law 

enforcement. We have to rely on other 

agencies like the U.S Coast or NMFS Office 

of Law Enforcement to follow up on those 

issues. Most of us can document it and we 

have the option to be able to pull observers 

off of boats, but we do not really have too 

much authority to get them to change their 

boats. 

Comment 

Alec Woods 

Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology 

New Zealand

 

With the observers in New Zealand, I use 

the example of the Artic Ranger. I find that 

these case studies are absolutely invaluable. 

The reason why I finished on the slide of the 

Hercules was that this was a major 

catastrophe, and none of us virtually know 

anything thing about it, so I take your point. 

There are some real gaps in the way we 

handle accidents that do occur at sea. I’m 

sure we all know there are areas of ocean 

out there were all sorts of things are going 

that we know very little about. You only 

have to look at who’s involved the pirate 

fishery being a well known one, but it is by 

means not the only one. I think that it is a 

good point that you make, and if we can get 

good information back from those events 

and feed that back into the training then I 

think we really getting somewhere. 

Comment

Keith Davis 

Association for Professional Observers 

USA

Ebol brought up a lot of good points. He’s 

working on a continuing project through the 

Association for Professional Observers, 

where we are trying to catalog all 

causalities, injuries, and harassment event 

for observes. If you have any events that you 

know of that we don’t have in our database 

up online we’d appreciate hearing of these 

events. Please check out the website at 

www.apo.-observers.org/join. Ebol is 

spearheading the safety area on the APO 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 145
site. Contact him with that information to 

share those sorts of stories with him. 

Comment 

Alec Woods 

Marlborough Institute of Technology 

New Zealand

Keith, there’s a magazine put out from the 

UK called Safety At Sea International. 

Have a look at that. It’s of most interest to 

large vessels, but it has very good detail on 

accidents and mishaps at sea. 

Question/Comment 

Jason Vestre 

West Coast Ground fish Observer Program 

USA

My question is for Matt and for Jeff about 

the Gulf Coast. Matt, you made a strong 

recommendation for observers to wear PFDs 

and to keep somebody, knowing their on 

deck. Do you require observers there to 

wear PFDs and do they? Also, you showed 

some statistics about vessels sinking or 

fatalities with while steaming. You 

mentioned steaming but also on your slide it 

said drifting. Our program has taken a 

strong stance in that we will not board a 

vessel that does not keep a watch while 

drifting. Do you have an issue with that in 

the Gulf Coast? And also, do you have 

minimum safety requirements for the boats 

there? Do you sometimes not board vessels 

due to those requirements not being met? 

Response 

Matt Walia 

IAP Worldwide Services 

USA

Yes, I’ll start off with the last point with the 

safety requirements. I’m sure everyone can 

vouch for their own programs, but we have 

pre-board safety forms we go over as far as 

making sure the EPERB is up to par, 

checking out the life raft, and ensuring their 

U.S. Coast Guard decal is concurrent, 

checking flares, etc. Maybe I used the 

improper word but PFDs are required. I was 

just trying to reiterate a fact to keep in the 

back of your mind, because a lot of the times 

when you’re out there, the crew and the 

captain might not necessarily be wearing 

that. Especially, I’m sure with new 

observers, maybe they’ll get jostled into 

getting made fun of or want to fit in, and try 

to take it off when its pretty calm weather. 

 

However, you do need to keep it on, because 

you could easily hit your head and fall over. 

It could happen in a split second. As far as 

drifting goes, at least I can speak for boats 

that I have been on, maybe someone else 

here can elaborate. There are times when 

you sit down for the night. The captain may 

be a little alert and try to jump up if he hears 

the alarm go off. However, there are times, 

I’ve experienced where everyone is just 

laying down for a couple of hours. It can 

cause a situation. There’s a lot of oil rigs out 

there in the Gulf, and sometimes you hear 

that horn come a little too close. I don’t 

know what you could do to recommend, to 

try to make the crew do that or if there’s 

some sort of form to enforce that, or when 

you get back- talking to the debriefer to 

address that issue. It may be something to 

look into. 

Question/Comment 

Jason Vestre 

West Coast Ground fish Observer Program 

USA

Are you aware of the maritime law of 

maintaining wheel watch at all times on a 

vessel? 

Response 

Matt Walia 

IAP Worldwide Services 

USA

Yes, maybe that could be something to be 

on the form. I’ve seen people break it, I 

guess. I don’t know how to address that. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 146
Comment/ Question 

Evan Casey 

Saltwater Inc. 

USA 

 

I’m an observer with the pelagic long line 

program in Hawaii, and my question is 

mainly to Simon. We run into a lot of the 

same conditions in Hawaii and Samoa that 

you mentioned with your slides of the 

mercer infections in the Gulf. The boats 

aren’t small enough though. Out in Hawaii, 

we seem to have a doctor that is familiar 

with our program and familiar with the 

conditions that observers are exposed to. 

Have you or any other members of the panel 

looked into having a dedicated physician 

that can prescribe antibiotic preemptively to 

observers than they can then carry at sea? 

Response 

Simon Gulak 

IAP Worldwide Services 

USA

We do not have a dedicated physician. We 

have tried to look into this idea of being able 

to prescribe stronger antibiotics and maybe 

have them on hand, but, as of yet, our 

contractor hasn’t resolved any of this. 

We’re still at sort of a standpoint for the 

moment. But that’s a good suggestion. 

Question/Comment 

Jennifer Hogan 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

My name is Jennifer Hogan with NOAA 

Fisheries in Alaska, and I appreciate your 

presentations. I come away with a renewed 

appreciation for, not only what the observers 

face at sea but also the crew members who 

fish our resource. Some of those pictures 

were funny but also depicted some 

deplorable living conditions. I was just 

wondering if there is an agency or any type 

of oversight in (I know there is some 

oversight as far as life raft go and PFDs,) 

human health and sanitation reviews. Are 

there any types of at sea requirements for 

doing sanitation procedures at each off load? 

Response 

Alec Woods 

Marlborough Institute of Technology 

New Zealand

Yes, there are but no one wants to know 

about them. There’s the Torremolinos 

protocol of 1993. There’s SDCW in ’95 

which 13 states have signed. It leaves 15 to 

be ratified. It needs to go another 12 months 

before it comes into force. So we’ve had 

two states sign this year so far. Maybe we’ll 

get 15 states signed up by the end of the 

year. And so the end of 2010 that may come 

into force and that has FAO ILO and IMO 

combined behind it. The answer is that 

there’s something coming. Some countries 

will turn around and say, “Well, we’re 

already way above that”, and they probably 

are. Others are waiting for this to come into 

force so that they then turn around and say 

“Hey, look. We have to meet this standard”. 

But there is something out there, it’s just 

takes it that long to gain momentum. It will 

still be a year or two for this.

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 147
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 148
Panel Session 7: 

How can self reported data by the fishing industry be improved 

for use in assessments and management? 

Moderator: Lisa Borges, European Commission, Belgium 

Speakers 

Howard McElderry –Canada 

Fishery Management by fishermen for fisherman: The area A crab association taking and leading role 

Floor Quirijns – The Netherlands 

Good Communication: The key to reliable results from self sampling 

Flavia Chen – USA 

Ensuring accurate reporting: Examining incentive structure in fisheries management 

Andrew Fedoruk – Canada 

Fisher- based audit system in the BC Groundfish Fishery 

Sally Roman – USA 

Validation of study fleet data collected through the SMAST study fleet program 

Irene Huse – Norway 

The representativeness of the reference fleet data and how it is biased by changes in the dynamics of the 

Norwegian Mackerel Purse Seine Fishery 

Beverly Sauls – USA 

Comparison of self- reported logbook data with at-sea observations in the recreational headboat fishery in 

Florida and Alabama 

Prabhath Patapendi – Sri Lanka 

Self Monitoring System: An indigenous system developed by Sri Lankan fishermen- a case study in 

Southern Sri Lanka 

Introduction to the session 

Self-sampling programs are an emergent issue in fisheries monitoring as observer’s programs are 

expensive, and many countries around the world can only afford small percentage coverage of 

their fishing fleets. Self-sampling programs can be used to increase sampling intensity, data 

availability and data quality. At the same time, these programs have the advantage of increasing 

industry buy-in for scientific advice and associated management measures. In many countries, 

self-sampling schemes take the form of the so-called reference fleet, i.e. a group of volunteered 

vessels that are sampled systematically and extensively, and thus constitute the reference for the 

fishing activity/behavior of the whole fleet. Several panelists from different countries including 

Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Sri Lanka and USA discussed the issues associated to selfsampling programs, namely: incentives for industry participation; programs funding; use of 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 149
reference or study fleets; protocols for industry training; credibility, appropriate uses and audit 

methods for self-reported data. 

Fishery management by fishermen for fishermen: The Area A 

Crab Association taking a leading role 

Edwards, P.1

, Scherr, J. 2, Gould, G. 1, Rusch, B3, *McElderry, H. 2 

Area A. Crab Association1, Archipelago Marine Research2, Victoria, BC, Canada 

 Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada3 

The Area A Dungeness crab fishery on the north coast of British Columbia is a unique example 

of industry group taking a lead role in implementing intensive self-monitoring in order to improve 

management and provide effective enforcement in their fishery. With about 50 vessels, 2,500 

fishing days and over 30,000 single buoyed traps, catches in this 10-month fishery may exceed 

$22CAD million per year. In 2000, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) was seeking 

to reduce total effort with vessel-based trap limits and reducing gear loss with trap soak limits. 

Meanwhile, conflict was building among fishery participants because there were high levels of 

gear and catch loss from theft and vandalism by other Area A fishers. Factors contributing to the 

conflict included the remote unmonitored fishery location, areas of high gear congestion and 

tangled buoy lines, and the high catch value making it tempting to poach catch from other’s traps. 

The conflict rose to crisis proportions with violence and industry was unable to find an acceptable 

remedy to their problems through DFO or the police. 

The Area A Crab Association, representing the majority of Area A licence holders, began to work 

with Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. to seek a cost effective, technology based monitoring 

solution for the fishery. After pilot studies considering a number of alternatives a monitoring 

program was developed. All vessels were required to carry an electronic monitoring (EM) 

system, powered 24/7 during the fishing trip, recording continuous imagery of the fishing deck 

and sensor data from GPS and hydraulic pressure. All trap buoys were fitted with radio 

frequency identification (RFID) chips and every trap haul was scanned to fine scale temporal and 

spatial resolution of all active gear. Data sets from each EM system were retrieved and analysed, 

with results reported to the fisher, the Association and DFO. 

The monitoring program, now in place for nearly 10 years, averages about 2% of the ex-vessel 

catch value and has brought about significant changes in the fishery. The level of compliance 

with the EM program is very high and incomplete data making up less than 0.02% of total fishing 

days in the fleet. With nearly complete monitoring, the objectives of DFO for trap limits and 

soak duration are effectively enforced, and more significantly, conflict has declined substantially 

with theft and vandalism being effectively controlled. The annual gear cost for fishers declined, 

in some cases by as much as 30%. Other unanticipated outcomes of the monitoring program 

included the implementation of a science-based approach to timing fishery openings. Selected 

vessels sample catch from a variety of stations to monitor moult stages and the EM system 

provides an audit check to ensure sampling is carried out properly. As well, the monitoring 

program created multiple years of fine scale temporal and spatial data that has been useful to 

establish a fishery ‘footprint’, enabling the Association to have meaningful engagement on issues 

such as wind farm and oil and gas development. The Association is also hopeful that the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 150
 

monitoring program will contribute to the successful application for certification by the Marine 

Stewardship Council. 

Perhaps the most interesting question is: How did this happen? Unlike most fisheries where such 

a monitoring program is the result of ‘top down’ initiatives led by the fishery agency, this 

program was entirely ‘bottom up’ through industry initiative. Importantly, the Area A 

Association represented the majority of licence holders, among which were respected leaders. 

One such leader, Wayne Helgason, advocated that “Fishermen need to take care of the fishery 

and be involved in the management. They have the most to gain but also the most to lose.” The 

Association’s executive director, Geoff Gould, points out that “The Association provides the 

organization, leadership, communication and motivation.” All licence holders recognized there 

were problems in their fishery that only they could solve. This ‘ownership of the problem’ 

fostered the recognition that 100% monitoring was necessary to effectively control the fishery. 

Self monitoring was accepted by most as a means to compel the rest of the fleet to be monitored. 

Monitoring reduced conflict and created a more orderly fishery, much in the same fashion as a 

referee provides to sporting events. Also contributing to the fishers becoming compliant was the 

widespread belief that EM provided a credible monitoring program, treating everyone across the 

fishery in an effective, unbiased fashion. The exclusive provision of the monitoring service by 

the Association enabled a range of both administrative and legal remedies for effective and timely 

resolution of compliance problems. In the words of the Association president Paul Edwards: 

“The compliance monitoring aspect of the program brings forced honesty. Everything else falls 

into place.” Lastly, the monitoring program made economic sense; the overall cost of the 

monitoring program was less than the cost of gear and catch loss. 

The Area A Crab monitoring program has been a great success but the Association still faces 

some challenges in controlling their fishery. The Association believes that standards are needed 

to ensure consistent application of EM across a range of fisheries. 

Good communication: The key to reliable results from self 

sampling 

Floor Quirijns1

Wageningen IMARES, The Netherlands1 

Introduction

Self sampling by fishers can be a useful method for affordable research that is supported by many 

parties. It is most efficient to have fishers carry out sampling, as they are at sea for a large amount 

of time; they know exactly how to handle their gear and they are familiar with their fishing 

grounds and distribution of the species they catch. Scientists add their expertise on how to set up 

experiments, analyze data and report on results. When fishers and scientists cooperate, all 

available expertise is applied to carry out a research project as good as possible. 

One question that is often being asked about these kind of experiments is: “Are the results of 

these experiments reliable?” The facts that fishers are not as experienced researchers as scientists 

and that fishers might have incentives to manipulate the outcome of a project, are plausible 

reasons to doubt whether the results are trustworthy. In the Netherlands a lot of experience is 

gained in cooperative research projects, leading to insight in how to get reliable results. The 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 151
 

lessons learnt are described by means of a case study: the mesh size experiment in the Dutch 

beam trawl fishery. 

A major problem in the Dutch beam trawl fishery is: “too many discards”. To tackle this problem 

the Dutch beam trawl fishers want to reduce their juvenile plaice discards. Other parties, i.e. 

managers, nature conservationists and fishers from other fleets, suggested increasing the 

minimum mesh size from 80 to 90 mm in order to reduce discards. In the fishing industry this 

suggestion raised the questions "Would that be a solution to the discard problem?" and "How 

would increasing the mesh size affect catch compositions?". Instead of a desk study or a scientist 

only approach, which had the potential to answer the questions, beam trawl fishers wanted to 

carry out an experiment that reflected their own experience and methods. By finding a fishers’ 

solution from the industry, there was the advantage that it was likely to be supported by other 

fishers as well. 

Methods 

A communication plan was designed based on the methods suggested by Johnson & Van Densen1

In general, this resulted in thorough communication during all phases of the project. Researchers 

and fishers designed an experimental set-up and work plan; carried out the research; monitored 

quality and eventually drew up conclusions together. 

A lot of attention was given to instruction of the skippers that were involved in the project. A 

protocol was set up based on the work plan. Before finalizing the protocol, its feasibility was 

checked with the skippers. 

During the experiment, IMARES research secondaries went onboard to carry out extra 

measurements and check the methods applied by the crew. Afterwards, the data collected by the 

secondaries could be compared to data collected by fishers in order to check reliability of those 

data. 

Results/Discussion 

This joint fishers and researchers project has been considered a success. It resulted in reliable 

data, thanks to good instructions, methods and data checks. The joint research approach led to 

results that were supported by the industry as a whole. These results have been used in 

discussions about discards in the beam trawl fishery, with staff from the European Committee and 

with the North Sea RAC (Regional Advisory Council). 

The factors leading to success were a good communication plan, thorough instruction of 

participating fishers and onboard checking methodology by observers. 

Notes: 

1. Johnson, T.R., Densen, W.L.T.v., 2007. Benefits and organization of cooperative research for fisheries 

management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64, 834-840 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 152
 

Ensuring accurate reporting: Examining incentive structure in 

fisheries management 

Ben Martens and *Flavia Chen 

 Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermens Association, Massachusetts, USA 

Introduction

The world of fisheries management is characterized by an asymmetry of information, uncertainty, 

and a multitude of management regimes. While it is widely recognized that accurate, truthful and 

complete self-reporting data is vital to successful fisheries management, this criterion alone 

cannot ensure consistency in management. In essence, best practices call for a regime of “trust 

self-reporting but verified through independent monitoring, while encouraging compliance 

through positive incentives.” Assuming rational behavior among fishermen, negative incentives 

often exist for individuals to harvest beyond the social and/or biological optimal limit, as the 

opportunity costs of foregone future harvesting are undervalued. At-sea monitoring has been 

shown to be an effective deterrent against unwanted discarding and in favor of honest reporting. 

This paper addresses the need for an incentive structure in commercial fisheries that takes into 

account the negative externalities inherent in the exploitation of common property resources, 

while providing positive motivation for compliance with management. We will compare fisheries 

with successful frameworks for this approach with a contrasting fishery from New England which 

has largely failed due to its over-reliance on unverified self-reporting. 

Methods 

This paper analyzes a series of publications in fisheries management literature, economic theory, 

and social studies relating to the role of incentives in bycatch reduction. The vital role of at-sea 

monitoring for any management system is highlighted. 

Results/Discussion

Danish Fisheries Policy: In November 2007, the Danish government began a new program for 

fisheries management that recognized the need for incentives in creating a sustainable industry. 

Under a TAC and quota system, fishing mortality resulted in over exploitation of stocks and 

underreporting of catch. The new program sought to make individual fishermen more accountable 

while also rewarding them for proper reporting. The scheme required all catches, both landed and 

discarded, to be reported. Furthermore, the data collected was of a high quality and could be used 

to assist in scientific stock modeling and policy creation. The project’s reliance on volunteers 

resulted in greater cooperation between industry and scientists. 

British Columbia. Groundfish From 1997-2005 the B.C. groundfish fishery used 10-20% 

observer coverage on hook and line fisheries to verify fishing reports. The accuracy and 

completeness was brought into question, and a Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee 

(PSARC) report examined the effectiveness of such a monitoring scheme. The study found that 

observer reports and logbooks could not be solely relied on. The resulting management model 

combines at-sea observers and/or electronic monitoring systems for complete perceived coverage 

of the fleet. Data indicates that catches for all except one species are being maintained within 

conservation limits in the hook and line and trap fisheries after this change. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 153
 

New England Atlantic Herring: Atlantic Herring are cooperatively managed as four distinct 

management areas with hard TACs. This management method requires accurate and timely 

reporting. The incentive to reallocate fishing effort clearly exists as TACs decrease. When TACs 

govern the length of a season, the incentive to discard is pervasive. Although there are area and 

season specific catch limits, the reliance on landings reports and the lack of actionable observer 

data on total catch – especially relating to at-sea discards – results in the enforcement of landings 

limits, a problematic discrepancy. Due to late, inaccurate, or incomplete reporting, catch and/or 

landing limits are regularly exceeded. Additionally, nearly all catch data (landings and discards) 

in the fishery are based on unverified, good-faith volumetric estimates by fishermen and dealers, 

as opposed to actual certified weights. This is especially true for high-volume target and 

incidental catch species such as Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, and river herring. 

Economics and Enforcement: Without thorough monitoring, the incentives for highgrading and 

discarding are substantial. Without the accountability that monitoring provides, measures such as 

full retention of quota species, though seemingly constructive in theory, provides incentives for 

illegal discarding at sea in practice. The necessity for at-sea coverage or EM system can also be 

seen in comparing the B.C. fishery with the West Coast fishery of the United States. In the U.S., 

the West Coast fishery is governed by TACs applicable to the whole fleet. As TACs for 

overfished species continue to decline, a strong incentive exists to concentrate effort on other 

species where there are less limitations and overages of TAC limited species could be discarded. 

In addition to discards due to size and accidental bycatch, a far more insidious form of overages 

occurs yearly in the form of illegal transactions and harvesting for the black market. A February, 

2009 press release from the Department of Justice reported the intentional overfishing of striped 

bass by five Maryland commercial fishermen valued at over $2.1 million. While this may be the 

exception, and not the rule, such events severely undermine the efforts of fishermen and 

managers working to sustain stocks and manage quotas. Despite examples of successful 

enforcement, many acts of illegal harvesting go unnoticed or are deemed too minor to warrant the 

costs associated with enforcement. If fisheries policy is to respond to inherent negative incentives 

as well as establish rewards, cost-effective methods of enforcement will need to be formulated. 

Research Needs: Further emphasis must be placed on creating accountability among fishermen, 

policy makers, and scientists alike. Analysis along the lines of the B.C. Electronic Monitoring 

regime, or the Danish Full-Documentation scheme would most likely be of great benefit to U.S. 

fisheries management, particularly if it took into consideration fisher’s incentives both to abide by 

regulations as well as eschew them. 

Fisher-based audit system in the BC Groundfish Fishery 

Andrew M. Fedoruk 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., Victoria, BC, Canada 

Introduction

Management of the several groundfish longline and trap sectors in British Columbia is based on 

the use of catch information from fisher-completed logs. Key to the use of these data is a system 

to monitor or Audit the data being provided. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 154
 

After each trip, the weight of landed and discarded catch has to be deducted from the vessel’s 

current quota holdings for each quota-managed species by Species Area Group (SAG). This 

information is summarized on a Quota Status Report (QSR) issued to the vessel. QSRs are 

generated using landed catch data which are allocated to quota areas using the catch area 

percentages. The default data source for the catch area percentages and any relevant released 

catch information is the fisher-completed Fishing Log. In order to assess whether or not the 

Fishing Log is complete and accurate enough to be used for catch management purposes, industry 

and Fisheries and Oceans have collaborated on the design and implementation of a number of 

tests of the fishing log data. This set of tests is what is referred to as the program Audit: a 

technical assessment of the data quality of the Fishing Log. 

The Audit’s primary purpose is to test the accuracy of the Fishing Log data against the catch data 

from the Dockside Monitoring Program and a percentage of the catch and spatio-temporal data 

from vessel-based electronic monitoring (EM) systems. If the data match within certain 

standards, the Fishing Log is used for the catch allocation and represents the at sea catch 

reporting for that trip. 

If the Fishing Log does not meet the current standards, the Trip is sent to a review board which 

may chose to use the Fishing Log Data as is, require further testing, or require further processing 

of data. In some cases, the data from the EM System supplants those from the Fishing Log. The 

entire process including data entry, analysis and processing is completed within five days of the 

landing. 

A review of the Audit process is provided, including descriptions of data sources, testing 

protocols, and results. 

Methods

Catch data from vessels participating in the GHLCMP (commercially licenced hook and line and 

trap vessels fishing groundfish in British Columbia) were compiled for 2008 and 2009 and 

processed according to the current program audit rules1

. The individual scores and overall audit 

results were summarized to assess performance. Analysis was done through simple tabulation of 

scores (frequencies) and comparisons of catch between the various data sources. 

Results/Discussion

Data from the first two years of the program reveal a high degree of agreement between fisher 

data and that collected in the DMP and EM program for the majority of species and tests 

completed, confirming a high degree of reliability in the fisher log data. 

For example, for 2,923 trips examined, 92% had a trip score value of 7 or higher, 85% had a 

score of 8 or higher and 57% had a score of 9 or higher (scores are out of a maximum of 10). For 

individual tests, summarizing all 6,850 DMP to Fishing Log comparisons performed, 91% scored 

8 or higher, 83% scored 9 or higher, and 38% scored a perfect 10. Similar results are seen for the 

25,444 EM to Fishing Log tests performed with 88% 8 or higher, 78% 9 or higher, and 30% 10s. 

Each trip is subject to a number of tests depending on the catch, with 71% of trips being subject 

to between 5 and 20 tests. 

A study conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada looking at catch rates of Yelloweye Rockfish 

also confirmed that the program is producing reliable catch estimates, stating “the observations 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 155
 

collected during the VF review (VF-data), although collected for the random fisher log audits, 

provide a virtually independent and unbiased estimate of total catch in pieces”2

.

Overall, results of the program confirm that data from self-reported Fishing Logs can yield high 

quality data for IVQ Management Purposes as well as estimating total removals for biological 

purposes. 

Notes: 

1. Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 2009. Overview of the 2009-2010 Groundfish Hook and Line/Trap 

Catch Monitoring Program Audit. www.Archipelago.ca. 

2. Stanley, R.D., N. Olsen, and A. Fedoruk. (in prep). Independent validation of the accuracy of 

yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) catch estimates from the Canadian Groundfish Integration Pilot 

Project. Paper presented to the Managing Data Poor Fisheries Workshop, Berkeley, California, U.S.A. 

December 2-4, 2008. 

Validation of study fleet data collected through the SMAST study 

fleet program 

Roman S*1, Cadrin SX2, Martins D1, Bank C1 

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, School for Marine Science and Technology, 

New Bedford, Massachusetts1; 

 NOAA/UMass Cooperative Marine Education & Research Program School for Marine 

Science and Technology, New Bedford, Massachusetts2 USA 

Study fleet programs offer a complementary source of fisheries dependent data for use in fisheries 

management and stock assessments. The SMAST study fleet program collects environmental and 

catch data in collaboration with the New Bedford offshore groundfish fleet. The project 

objectives include: 1) obtaining fisheries data with high spatial and temporal resolution; 2) 

involving the fishing industry in the collection of fisheries data and management of the resources; 

3) developing methods for training commercial fishermen to record scientifically acceptable data 

during normal fishing operations; and 4) characterizing the effects of environmental conditions 

and fishing operations on spatial and temporal patterns in catch statistics. Study fleet data were 

compared to vessel trip reports, dealer landings data and NMFS observer data for nine trips over a 

data collection period from April 2006 to April 2007. Data were evaluated on multiple levels: 

trip, effort, catch, and landings. 

Despite the few observed trips, comparisons were generally favorable for most catch records, but 

also defined some minor systemic differences. Validation of self reported data is an important 

aspect of assessing the credibility of data before information can be incorporated into a scientific 

or management program. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 156
 

The representativeness of the reference fleet data and how it 

may be biased by changes in the dynamics of the Norwegian 

mackerel (Scomber scombrus) purse seine fishery 

*Irene Huse1 and Cecilie Kvamme1

Institute of Marine Research, Norway 

The peak period and the fishing areas of the Norwegian mackerel purse seine fishery have 

changed considerably due to market situations. The Norwegian reference fleet (17 high seas 

vessels, and 21 coastal vessels) was established to get better and continuous sampling, by training 

the crew to conduct sampling of the catches. Since 2003 the number of purse seine vessels in the 

reference fleet has increased from one to five. To investigate if the changes in the mackerel 

fishery can affect the representativeness of the data from the reference fleet we use data from the 

vessel monitoring system, and sale slips data. We compare landings per trip for the total fleet with 

the reference fleet, and look at the spatial and temporal overlap for the time period 2006–2008. 

Materials and Methods

The study is based on Norwegian sale slips data and satellite data from the vessel monitoring 

system (vms). The sale slips data give information about each landing: vessel, date, gear, species, 

weight (round weight, kg), and fishing ground (cell in the strata system of the Norwegian 

Directorate of Fisheries1

. Vms data are available for active fishing vessels with an overall length 

above 24 m. The time resolution is one hour and these data give information about vessel, time, 

date, and geographical position. 

In this study, the mackerel purse seine fleet is defined as all vessels larger than 24 m (vms limit) 

landing mackerel (landings > 10 t) by purse seine in the mackerel season The vessels (5%) with 

the smallest annual mackerel purse seine landings were excluded. 

Vessel name Length, m 2006 2007 2008 

Utflesa 21.3 * * * 

Nybo 69.5 * * * 

Hargun 68.1 * * 

Libas 94.0 * * 

Skagøysund 27.5 * * 

Eros 75.9 * 

Brennholm 75.4 * 

 

 Table 1. Purse seiners in the Norwegian reference fleet 2006-2008 8 

Results and discussion

Landings from both the total fleet and the reference fleet show the effect of the time limited 

embargos from buyers or sellers organizations in 2006-2008. A significant difference (GLM, 

p<0.05) in the first landing date and the total number of trips during the season was found 

between the reference fleet and the total fleet for 2006 and 2008 (Table 2). The landings per trip 

or amount of catch exceeding the vessels quota were not different between the groups for any of 

the years tested, and there was no difference in the last date for delivery either. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 157
 

2006 2007 2008 

Fishing dates ** NS ** 

Landed catch exceeding quota NS NS NS 

Number of trips ** NS ** 

 

Table 2. Overall fishing strategy.(GLM, level p<0.01 ) 

 In 2008, this pelagic part of the reference fleet shared an additional quota of 600 t mackerel and 

600 t of herring. The total number of trips by the reference fleet is significantly larger compared 

to the total fleet in 2006 and 2008.Thus also the number of samples of the catches and possibly 

the precision increase, but the accuracy may still be biased because of the temporal and spatial 

nature of the data. 

There seems to be a difference in the areas fished between the groups (Figure 1). This should be 

further studied. 

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Figure 1. Fishing positions from vms in 2006 and 2007. Dark blue: reference fleet. Light blue: other vessels 

Notes: 

1. http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/statistikk/fiskeri/kart/kart-lokasjon-og-omraade 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 158
 

Comparison of self-reported logbook data with at-sea 

observations in the recreational headboat fishery in Florida 

*Beverly Sauls1 and Kenneth Brennan2

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute, Saint Petersburg, FL1

 National Marine Fisheries Service 

 Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Beaufort, NC2 

Introduction

Approximately 100 large-capacity headboats (also called party boats) operate in Florida. These 

vessels carry greater than 10 passengers up to approximately 120 passengers (limited by vessel 

capacity) and accept walk-on recreational anglers for a per-person fee. The primary mode of 

fishing is hook-and-line fishing for reef-fish and other bottom-associated species, and a select 

number of vessels also drift fish for pelagic species, such as mackerel. 

Headboats in Florida have been required to report their daily fishing trips and harvest by species 

to National Marine Fisheries Service since the early 1980’s. In 2005, the state of Florida received 

funding on both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts to pilot test an at-sea observer monitoring 

program on working headboats. The pilot was designed to collect detailed data on the numbers, 

size, and condition of harvested and released fish. For this analysis, we present a direct 

comparison of self-reported logbook data and at-sea observer data from recreational angling trips 

taken from headboats in Florida between 2005 and 2007. 

Methods

During 2005, 2006, and 2007, vessels from each of five regions in Florida were selected for atsea observer monitoring (Figure 1). Approximately 280 observer trips statewide were completed 

each year. During each sampled trip, one observer was stationed on the port side, and one 

observer was stationed on the starboard 

side of the vessel. If the vessel carried 

more than 30 passengers, observers 

were permitted to select a sub-sample 

of 15 or more anglers within their line 

of sight to observe for 100% of the 

fishing time. For each observed angler, 

we recorded the number of harvested 

and released fish by species. 

Paper log sheets were provided to 

vessel operators by National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and vessel operators 

were required to fill out a separate log 

sheet for each trip the vessel made. 

Space was provided on the logsheet to report the 

numbers and pounds of harvested fish by species, 

numbers of fish released by species, and the 

numbers of paying passengers for each trip. 

Figure 1. Five sample regions for at-sea headboat 

observer surveys. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 159
 

For this analysis, we matched observer records for a given vessel on a given day and time-period 

with logbook reports filled out by the vessel operator. For vessel trips where all anglers were 

observed for 100% of the fishing time, we did a direct comparison of the total harvest and total 

released catch by species to what was reported for the trip on the logbook. For vessel trips where 

only a sub-sample of anglers could be directly observed, we calculated an expanded catch 

(harvest or released) for the trip (Equation 1). The expanded catches for the vessel trip from the 

observer data were directly compared to logbook reports for the same trip. 

Equation 1: 

Expanded catch trip x = (number of species a observed/number anglers observed) trip x * (total number of 

anglers) trip x 

 

 To test for significant differences between observed and expanded catches and self-reported 

logbook catches, we used a paired t-test with a significance level of alpha=0.05. For this analysis, 

we chose the following reef fish species of significant importance for fisheries management: red 

snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), vermillion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens), yellowtail 

snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis), red grouper (Epinephelus 

morio), gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus). 

Results/Discussion

For observed trips where all of the anglers were observed 100% of the fishing time, the numbers 

of harvested fish counted by observers were not significantly different than trip log reports in all 

regions for all species. This indicates that operators are accurately self-reporting harvested fish on 

the trip logs. For observed trips where harvest rates were expanded for unobserved anglers, some 

comparisons were significantly different. Based on these results, we conclude that self reported 

logbook data for harvested fish is comparable to counts by at-sea observers for the five managed 

species; however, there may be differences in catch rates among anglers fishing from different 

areas on the vessel that have a significant impact on the average catch rates. It is preferable to 

observe 100% of the anglers on a sampled trip, or more effort should be made to sub-sample 

anglers from various areas around the vessel to eliminate any potential bias. 

The numbers of discarded fish were consistently under-reported on logbooks in this study 

(significant at alpha=0.05 in almost every comparison). For red snapper, observers counted a 

mean of nearly 50 more discards per trip than were reported by vessel operators on log books 

(statewide). This may be due to the fact that vessel operators are more likely to keep track of 

harvested fish that are strictly managed with bag limits, but may be less able to accurately record 

fish that are discarded. The large volume and short handling time for live discards may make it 

difficult for vessel operators to count and track discards during the course of a fishing trip. For 

these highly regulated species, discards in the recreational fishery far exceed landings, and 

discard mortality has become a significant portion of total fishing mortality. The results of this 

study indicate that accurate estimates of discards are not provided by self-reported logbooks and 

at-sea surveys may be a better approach to collecting this information. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 160
 

Self monitoring system: an indigenous system developed by Sri 

Lankan fishermen- A case study in Southern Sri Lanka 

Prabhath Patapendi 

 Institute of Human Development and Training, Sri Lanka 

Sri Lanka has a population of 18.5 million. To satisfy its fish protein requirements it needs 

270,000 t of fish per year, 220,000 t of which is taken from its own waters, the rest is imported. 

The marine sector contributes 202,000 to the total fish catch; the balance comes from inland 

waters. Coastal waters contribute 80% of the marine catch; the balance comes from the deep sea 

and offshore areas. The deep and offshore catches are mostly tuna, tuna-like fish, bill fishes and 

sharks the majority of which spend their young days in coastal waters before they move out to the 

deep. Long before any scientific understanding of fish stocks, fishermen were aware of the 

reduction in abundance caused by over fishing. They knew that over fishing has to be dealt by 

collective action which later became the written fisheries law. They also aware of the value of 

protecting the females and young animals by means of non-fishing seasons such as the breeding 

seasons or prohibition of fishing for young fish, and later these traditions were added to their 

laws. But now this indigenous system collapsed with the introduction of the license to fish in the 

Sri Lankan waters by foreign fishing vessels. They harvest fish by using all sorts of techniques 

harmful and destructive to the sustainability of the fishing industry in Sri Lanka. There are lots of 

initiatives at the southern coastal belt to regenerate the indigenous system that leads to sustainable 

fishery. 

Sustainable Fishery program has been working with the poor fishermen in Southern coastal belt 

whose income is below the poverty line to empower them to face this new challenge. This paper 

analyses the advantages of the indigenous system used for almost 2500 years and the difficulty to 

practice it with the foreign fishing vessels in the absence of formal monitoring mechanism by the 

government authorities. 

Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Question/ Comment 

Julie Bonney

Alaska Fish Data Bank 

USA 

My question relates to the audit system in 

Canada. I noticed that on slides that you 

used, you used counts, which I’m assuming 

are converted to weights based on the 

dockside landings. I was just curious if 

you’ve looked at biases because I would 

think that average weight would be 

potentially different for what you see at the 

dock versus what is discarded at sea, (that’s 

one question). The other question deals with 

interaction with marine mammals and sea 

birds and whether you have some kind of 

information available since that’s usually 

documented by observers versus EM. 

Response 

Andrew Fedoruk 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada

For the weights, you’re correct that the 

actual landed weights are used for IVQ and 

then it’s allocated to the area by piece 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 161
 

percentages. For the at sea discards, it’s 

allocated typically by pieces. Then, those are 

basically allocated weights based on formula 

from the department. So they are set fixed 

weights. One of the real challenges is 

(obviously since you are from Alaska) 

something like a rockfish, the weight range 

is quite significant for all of the pieces. So, 

there is a bit of averaging with the at sea 

discards using an average weight per piece 

for IVQ, yes, absolutely. 

Comment/ Question 

Andrew Fedoruk 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd 

Canada

For marine mammals and sea birds, are you 

talking about actual catch incidents or 

interactions at sea? 

Response 

Julie Bonney 

Alaska Fish Data Bank 

USA

Interactions. 

Comment 

Andrew Fedoruk 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd, Canada

We certainly see any interaction with the 

gear, but yes, its one of the limitations of 

EM- its not looking around the ocean to see 

what is going on. 

Question/Comment 

William Ward 

Gulf Fishermen’s Association 

USA 

Good job panelists, I enjoyed it. Beverly, I 

had a question for you primarily since I’m 

from the region. First and foremost was the 

issue of the 280 trips. I was curious to know 

what the relationships of those were with 

Gulf trips to the Atlantic trips. I believe you 

said you had five regions. Second question 

relates to your three year project that’s 

coming up. What are you going to do in the 

project in terms to ensure that you get a 

cross section of depth considerations with 

the study in the recreational fishery? 

The reason why I ask that is I currently am 

the principle investigator of a CRP for the 

commercial industry and we’re getting a 

broad strata of depths. I just wanted to see 

what your study was going to do in terms of 

shallow water, mid-level waters and deeper 

water fishing effort in the Gulf region. Then 

of course, after the break if you need any 

help with identifying some possible 

participants, charter boats in our region I’m 

very well acclimated to the fishery. I used 

to be a charter boat captain for years also. 

So I’d be glad to help out anyway I could. 

Response 

Beverly Sauls 

Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

USA 

Your question for the Gulf versus the 

Atlantic is what was their distribution of 

sampled trips? 

Continued Comment/ Question 

William Ward 

Gulf Fishermen’s Association 

USA 

Yes. I believe it was 280 trips you 

mentioned in the presentation. 

I was trying to get the relationship of 

Atlantic to Gulf. 

Response 

Beverly Sauls 

Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

USA

I believe it was about half and half. I don’t 

know the numbers off the top of my head, 

but what I did was I took the number of 

vessels in each region and proportionately 

allocated trips to those regions based on the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 162
 

number of vessels. As far as the cross 

section of depth, we’re interested in 

recording whatever the fishery is doing. So 

our strategy is to conduct a random sample. 

Hopefully we’ll have representative 

cooperation from vessels that operate both in 

state and federal waters so that we can get a 

good sample of each of those. Right now 

I’m still recruiting though for that so I 

haven’t had a chance to look at the 

representativeness of the sample because 

I’m still trying to get vessels into the system, 

but for the previous study it was all head 

boat vessels were included and were 

randomly sampled. So whatever trip they 

were doing the week they were selected is 

what we sampled. 

Question/ Comment

Craig Loveridge

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand 

Sally, you mentioned during your talk that 

you removed identical weights, weights that 

were the same. I just wondered how many 

points that was or how much data that was 

that you removed and a bit of the rationale 

as to why they were removed. 

Response 

Sally Roman 

University of Massachusetts 

USA 

I don’t have the actual numbers. I’d have to 

go look it up on my computer. The rationale 

behind it was that if they were tending to 

work together and get the same exact weight 

then you would actually have more 

similarities. So that would actually bias the 

statistical tests that we were trying to do. 

Question/Comment 

Kelle Moreau 

Institute of Fisheries Research 

Belgium 

I have a question for my Dutch colleague. 

You were talking about the problem of the 

plaice discards and showed that increasing 

the mesh size was not a problem because of 

the mixed fishery aspects and the sole 

relation. Recently I’ve attended a meeting 

where it was suggested that in the future we 

might want to work towards getting rid of 

the minimum landing size in place. To what 

extent do you think that would be a 

solution? 

Response 

Floor Quirijns 

Wageningen Imares Institute for Marine 

Resources and Ecosystem Studies 

Netherlands

We have been discussing this with 

fishermen too. It is not 27 centimeters, but 

the problem is that the market for the even 

smaller plaice under 27 centimeters will be 

very bad because there used to be a smaller 

size category for place, which is marketable, 

but didn’t sell very well, so I don’t really see 

that as a possibility 

Question/Comment 

Lori Steele 

New England Fisheries Management 

Council 

USA

My question is for the representative from 

the Cape Cod Commercial Hook 

Fisherman’s Association. Regarding your 

presentation I heard a lot of incentives 

discussed about why fishermen may not 

report accurately and I heard about the need 

for comprehensive monitoring, most of 

which seemed to be through some sort of a 

third party, like observers or electronic 

monitoring to check and confirm the selfreported data. However, I’m not clear on 

what the incentive structure may be within 

the management system that you referred to 

for accurate self-reporting 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 163
 

I guess my questions are all related -What 

are the incentives for the industry to report 

accurately and what is it that your group 

thinks can be established in the management 

system to provide those incentives? Maybe I 

have a different interpretation of what an 

incentive is, but is the incentive to report 

accurately simply the fact that the industry 

will be monitored closely presumably at an 

additional cost to them and will be 

reprimanded if they don’t report accurately? 

Response 

Flavia Chen 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s 

Association 

USA 

I approached this presentation from a more 

hypothetical standpoint-what are the 

incentives for fishermen to report accurately. 

I was not approaching it from a negative 

standpoint of are they going to get in 

trouble. Clearly, discards are a big problem 

in commercial fisheries in general. I think 

the incentive for complete monitoring exists 

on both sides for fishermen. As an example, 

if fishermen distressed science and say their 

tax is too low, they have a huge incentive to 

take on monitoring to say, “What are we 

actually seeing?” If you can establish a 

scientific baseline that’s a huge incentive for 

them to potentially raise their tax. That has 

happened, and I think that there is an 

example of that. For management, I think 

the incentive for 100 percent monitoring is 

pretty clear. The less uncertainty you have in 

your management, the closer is can parallel 

what’s actually going on. I was suggesting 

that the cost should be shared between 

industry and management, because from my 

readings it seems to be that there’s incentive 

on both sides. This is clearly a hypothetical 

paper at the moment. 

Question 

Gordon Gislason 

Gs Gislason Associates, Ltd., Canada 

Canada 

Would the BC Ground Fish monitoring 

program work if there wasn’t 100 percent 

coverage of vessels and 100 percent 

coverage of trips? Also, I have a follow-up 

question for Beverley, who I believe 

indicated that on the charter boat observer 

program that she compared observed trips 

log books versus observer data and found 

some comfort in the fact that they aligned 

with each other, but that doesn’t really 

address the question of whether behavior 

and log book completion on unobserved 

trips is different than on observed trips. 

Response 

Andrew Fedoruk 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

No

Comment/ Question 

Gordon Gislason 

Gs Gislason Associates, Ltd. 

Canada 

You said you had some comfort that there 

was the log book data and the observer data 

aligned with each other on observed trips, 

but that doesn’t really address the observer 

bias issue and I was just wondering whether 

you had some thoughts or there’s some other 

investigations you’ve done on that that 

weren’t part of your presentation. 

Response 

Beverly Sauls 

Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

USA 

Well it didn’t stop them in the southeast 

from not turning in a log book, which is not 

legal. I feel like they were quite 

comfortable with us on the vessel because 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 164
 

we saw some things that shouldn’t be 

happening, certain species being used for 

bait. I don’t think that there was much 

intimidation for us being on the vessel 

versus what happens when we’re not on the 

vessel. 

The fact that the discards told a different 

story indicates that at least they are able to 

accurately report the harvested catch, but 

maybe not. Maybe we shouldn’t expect the 

same results for discards. I can’t guarantee 

that their behavior wasn’t altered when we 

were on the vessel, but my sense is that we 

weren’t too much of an intimidation for 

them. 

Question/ Comment 

Edwin Van Helmond

Wageningen Imares, Institute for Marine 

Resources and Ecosystem Studies 

Netherlands 

I work myself on a shell sampling program 

for discards. I have a question for all 

panelists. You all mentioned you test your 

data in one way or another way. I’m 

wondering what you do with the data that 

are not up to your satisfaction. So if they 

are more or less wrong are you deleting 

them or converting them? 

My second question is if you delete them are 

you not afraid you’re going to lose a lot of 

data this way? 

Response 

Andrew Fedoruk 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada

In our program we don’t actually discard 

any data at all. What we do is basically use 

the best quality data through that audit 

process. So for example, if the fishing log 

data doesn’t meet the standards that we 

expect, we don’t so much discard it, but we 

will replace it using the observed data 

through the imagery. So there’s always a 

complete data set of everything, so in 

essence we don’t ever discard data. 

Response 

Sally Roman 

University of Massachusetts 

USA

In terms of our data, we don’t get rid of any 

data that we feel is poor quality, but I guess 

the only way that we do alter the data is in 

the toter ration if they record that incorrectly 

and then we verify it against the temperature 

sensor. If this occurs, then we do change 

that, but there’s still documentation of what 

they originally had written down so we’d 

still keep all of our data as well. 

Question/Comment 

Greg Croft 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada 

 

From what the panel was saying I just 

wanted to make a comment of an example 

where we went from 100 percent monitoring 

on George’s Bank (we had the problem that 

was mentioned on some other fisheries), 

where one species had a quota that was 

much, much higher than the quota for cod. 

So we were sure there was quite a bit of 

dumping going on. So what we did was we 

went to 100 percent observer coverage and 

100 percent eliminator trawls and then once 

we had some confidence that that was 

working and the log books were looking 

good because they were close to the 

observers, the next year we dropped to 50 

percent. 

Any of the fishers that didn’t take an 

observer they got the average of their fleets 

observer coverage ratio of cod to haddock 

and they lost cod off their quota. So if they 

said they landed 500 kilograms and the 

observer coverage said the fleet landed 

1,000 they lost 500 extra off their quota. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 165
 

A very good fisherman then asked for an 

observer so he could prove that he was 

fishing at a better ratio than the regular fleet 

that had the observer. Now we’re down to 

20 percent and we’re pretty confident 

they’re keeping their logs pretty good. 

Otherwise they’re going to get that ratio that 

might be a little less beneficial for them. 

Question/Comment 

Craig Loveridge 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand 

 

Irene, In your talk you mentioned slippage 

and I don’t know what the term means. So 

could you just give a quick explanation of 

what slippage is? 

Response 

Irene Huse 

Institute of Marine Research 

Norway 

By slippage I mean often you have first your 

fish up to the side of the purse seiner. Then 

you may lower down the opening, the 

beginning of the net and slip out some fish 

before you start pumping, during your 

pumping or after the fish is dead. That’s 

what we call slipping. 

Question/Comment 

Vicki Cornish 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA

I was just wondering if any of the panelists 

could speak to whether it’s true that in rights 

based management systems that selfreporting tends to be more accurate. 

Comment/ Clarification 

Lisa Borges 

European Commission 

Belgium

The question was if in ITQ’s if the data is 

more accurately reported or not. 

Comment/ Clarification 

Vicki Cornish 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA

Yes, when there’s fishermen involvement in 

how the fishery is managed that the selfreporting tends to be more accurate. 

Response 

Floor Quirijns 

Wageningen Imares, Institute for Marine 

Resources and Ecosystem Studies 

Netherlands

In the Netherlands we do have an ITQ 

system and I don’t have an idea whether that 

really helps in getting more accurate data by 

self-sampling, but I do have the feeling that 

there is quite a group of fishers that are 

really into how the fisheries should be 

managed. So I don’t have the possibilities 

to compare it to systems where there is no 

ITQ’s, but I do have the impression that they 

do want to put some effort in getting reliable 

data. But still there’s always those 

difference between fishers. There’s always 

one group of fishers that participate in every 

project and there’s a group of fishers that we 

cannot really reach, so there’s also a 

difference in that. 

Comment 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

It might seem implicit that rights based 

management and the vested interest that the 

license holders have would orient them 

towards more accurate data through selfreporting, but I think there are so many 

competing issues there that I don’t think it’s 

necessarily true. I think what is true though 

is that in rights based fisheries, the license 

holders have a vested interest in making sure 

that the data in the fishery are more 

accurate, whatever means that is. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 166
Panel Session 8: 

What specific issues are important to the fishing industry 

regarding fishery monitoring? 

Moderator: Amy Sierra Van Atten, NEFOP, National Marine Fisheries Service, USA 

Speakers 

David Boyes – Canada 

After 4 years: A fisherman’s experience with British Columbia Groundfish Integration Pilot Program. 

Eric Brazer – USA 

An inaugural case study in groundfish sector monitoring. 

Vito Giacalone –USA 

Development of Fishtrax, a reporting tool designed by fishermen for groundfish sectors 

Rodney Avila – USA 

Importance of safe and sound monitoring programs from a Fishery Management Council Member 

John Gauvin – USA 

New handling & accounting procedures to reduce halibut mortality rates while improving catch 

accounting. 

Elio Neves – Azores, Portugal 

Fishermen and the University of Azores working together to observe the tuna fishery. 

Mary Beth Tooley – USA 

Developing a monitoring program in the U.S. Atlantic Herring Fishery. 

William Ward – USA 

Benefits of cooperative research as seen by the Gulf Fishermen’s Association in Florida. 

Introduction to the session 

Welcome to our 8th session that is comprised of fishing industry representation from around the 

world. Our speakers come to us from Portugal, British Columbia, and the U.S. They will address 

issues that are important to the fishing industry regarding fishery monitoring. Among the topics 

our panelists will cover are; the impact of new innovative fishery management strategies on data 

collection activities, real-time bycatch management strategies, sentinel fisheries or cooperative 

research as mechanisms to improve fishery monitoring, costs issues and risk-benefit analysis of 

industry-led fishery monitoring programs, and outreach processes for successful implementation 

of fishery monitoring. 

All of us here agree that it is important that viable valid methods to sustain our marine resources 

are critical. Today we will hear from the primary users of that resource on the importance of 

working cooperatively with industry in developing monitoring programs and incorporating new 

technologies to ensure sound resource management. Are fishermen willing to take accountability 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 167
 

and responsibility for their utilization of the resource? Are they concerned how the data is being 

collected and used? Do they want to have strong and open communications with the resource 

managers? I think we will hear the answer to these questions and more. 

After four years: A fisherman's experience with the British 

Columbia Groundfish Integration Pilot Project 

David Boyes 

 Arbegar Fishing Company, British Columbia, Canada 

In 2006 BC groundfishermen began to fish under a new management system whereby vessels 

were individually responsible for all their catch, and any mortality associated with at-sea releases. 

All vessels were required to carry either observers (the large, trawl fleet) or video cameras (the 

smaller hook and line and trap fleet) and to fill out detailed logbooks. Fish quotas became 

transferrable between species license categories, under negotiated trading rules, so that vessels 

had access to the fish they needed. Since the beginning of this program, all species have been 

fished within annual TACs. 

An inaugural case study in groundfish sector monitoring 

 Eric Brazer 

 Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association 

Chatam, Massachusetts, USA 

Sectors offer communities of fishermen the 

opportunity to manage their own quotas of fish. 

Fishermen are given more control over their 

businesses, the chance to increase their profits, 

opportunities to rid themselves of trip limits, and 

the satisfaction of knowing that they won’t be 

forced to discard fish. In return, they agree to 

operate more responsibly and to live within the 

rules. Further, they agree to stop overfishing and 

to develop a monitoring program that ensures this 

goal. The Cape Cod Commercial Hook 

Fishermen’s Association (CCCHFA) has 

developed a monitoring program for one of the 

only two Sectors in New England: the Georges 

Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector (Fixed Gear Sector). 

Through the use of innovative video monitoring 

systems, trained data collectors, and the Sector 

members themselves, CCCHFA and the Fixed 

Gear Sector have advanced a credible and viable 

program for their fishing community. 

Additionally, this work is intended as a blueprint for the 17 additional Sectors, representing a 

majority of the ground-fishermen in New England, to use when they are approved in 2010. The 

key to an optimal and successful Sector program is the ability to accurately know how many fish 

Eric Brazer 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s 

Association, USA

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 168
 

are being removed from the ocean; without it, guesswork, extrapolations, and assumptions will 

continue to drive fisheries and fishermen to extinction. Robust monitoring brings more accurate 

data; more accurate data leads to more effective management; and more effective management 

leads to more fish and more profit for fishermen. Only through a robust and accurate catch 

monitoring program will any catch share program, including Sectors, allow fishermen to achieve 

optimal yield while not exceeding the biological limits of our prized fish populations. 

Development of Fishtrax, a reporting tool designed by fishermen 

for groundfish sectors 

Vito Giacalone 

 Northeast Seafood Coalition, Gloucester, Massachusetts, USA 

A monitoring system should be designed to provide real and measurable long-term benefits for a 

fishery. To be embraced by commercial fishermen, the effort put toward data collection should 

enhance fishing flexibility, eliminate reporting redundancies, reduce scientific uncertainty and 

improve the economic viability of the fishery. The Northeast Seafood Coalition in partnership 

with Geek Gene, Inc. developed a software system called Fishtrax to accomplish these objectives. 

Vito Giacalone 

Northeast Seafood Coalition, USA 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 169
 

Importance of safe and sound monitoring programs from a 

Fishery Management Council member 

Rodney Avila 

 New England Fishery Management Council 

 New Bedford, Massachusetts 

 USA

Rodney is a member of the New England Fishery Management Council and serves on the Safety 

and Enforcement Committee among others. He is a career commercial fisherman out of New 

Bedford Massachusetts. Rodney also works with IMP as a safety drill instructor helping to 

improve the safety aboard commercial fishing vessels.

New handling and accounting procedures on deck to reduce 

halibut mortality rates while improving catch accounting 

John Gauvin, Best Use Cooperative 

 Seattle, Washington State 

 USA 

At the Electronic Monitoring Workshop sponsored by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

workshop last June, I stated that for larger scale fisheries in Alaska, Electronic Monitoring should 

be developed to replace human observer coverage for compliance monitoring applications 

wherever possible. My opinion is that the skills and training of human observers are better 

utilized for biological data collections and other resource management duties. EM systems are 

capable of being “on duty” 24/7 and with further development and some periodic spot checks by 

human observers, these systems would free up observers to expand biological data collections 

such as additional stomach contents sampling or gonad collections, or even some baseline 

ecosystem monitoring data collections. The crux of this matter turns on development of EM 

systems that are sufficiently robust and improvements in cost effectiveness of EM, particularly in 

the review of EM data. After I made this pronouncement I showed a short video of crew members 

crew members in Alaska sorting Pacific halibut from a net brought on board, prior to the 

prohibition on sorting catch on deck (sorting halibut from tow net that was not selected for 

observer sampling). The purpose of the clip was to illustrate a potentially challenging application 

for EM. Many who had agreed with my opening statement about using EM for purely monitoring 

tasks approached me after my talk. They wondered if EM could really be effective for monitoring 

based on conditions on deck in the video. To them I replied that if the industry’s approach were 

simply “business as usual” then EM will probably not work or might be so expensive 

(particularly in the data review phase) that it would be cheaper to keep to the present system that 

results in very high halibut mortality rates and high observer coverage costs. So in my short talk 

in Portland, I’d like to describe progress since last June in the development of new handling and 

accounting procedures on deck to reduce halibut mortality rates while improving catch 

accounting. We are currently gearing up for a field study this summer under an EFP to assess 

potential for reducing halibut mortality rates on flatfish vessels through changes in fish handling 

procedures. These procedures are not “business as usual” in terms of how fish and handled on 

deck and in the processing area. The objective is to engage in a paradigm shift to use the 

industry’s knowledge of how to sort and get accurate accounting of catches at sea in a 

collaboration that is working to facilitate monitoring and accounting of catches while reducing 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 170
 

bycatch mortality rates for halibut. The first phase of our pilot study is primarily focused on 

estimating the potential for reduction of halibut bycatch mortality rates but will incorporate an 

EM system to evaluate potential for monitoring of the new catch handling procedures. In the next 

phase of this study, we hope to continue working with the Alaska Fisheries Science Center to 

evaluate how to strike an appropriate balance between human observer coverage and electronic 

monitoring. Preliminary results for the field work should be available in time for the 

International Observer Conference in Portland in late July. 

Fishermen and the University of the Azores working together to 

observe the tuna fishery 

* Elio Neves, and Miguel Machete 

 APASA, Azores, Portugal

Tuna Producers Association of the Azores (APASA) was created in 1985 in order to represent the 

professionals that harvest tuna and similar species in the Azorean waters. The association focused 

on fisheries related issues but also in trade questions since a considerable part of tuna was 

exported and consumed abroad. In the 1990’s, it became clear for APASA and other parties, that 

there was an urgent need to be fulfilled in the tuna fishery – the dolphin safe certification. Tuna 

export was seriously conditioned by this fact, since the Azores had a strong traditional whaling 

history. In 1998, after some unsuccessful attempts, the regional administration, the Institute of 

Marine Research (IMAR), APASA, Industry Association and Earth Island Institute (certification 

body) agreed in the establishment of a Program that would be independent, managed by the 

University of the Azores (through IMAR), and that would be responsible to place observers 

onboard APASA tuna fishing vessels associates - the Azores Fisheries Observer Program 

(POPA). Since then, Dolphin Safe certification was assured every year, with collected data 

demonstrating that there was no mortality of dolphins or other cetacean in the Azorean tuna 

fishery. Besides that, a large amount of information regarding tuna fishery and associated species 

started to be systematically collected by the observers. As a consequence of the data collection 

program, the Friend of the Sea certification (a broader certification for sustainable fisheries) was 

granted to this fishery in 2001. After 11 years of cooperation between parties, POPA data is 

frequently requested by administration and researchers (eg: for management purposes) but also by 

fishermen that can beneficiate from information collected in previous years. Presently, APASA 

and IMAR/University of the Azores are trying to establish closer cooperation based on POPA and 

other projects data in order to provide more information about tuna abundance and their relation 

with environmental factors such as primary production and surface temperature. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 171
 

Developing a monitoring program in the U.S. Atlantic Herring 

Fishery 

Mary Beth Tooley 

 O”Hara Corporation, Rockport, Maine, USA 

The Atlantic herring fishery in 

US territorial waters on the 

northeast continental shelf has 

come under tremendous 

scrutiny in recent years due 

the nature of this volume 

fishery that is not well 

understood by many 

stakeholders. Having 

recovered from a major 

decline in biomass in the late 

1970s and early 1980s, the 

resource has fully recovered 

and fishing mortality remains 

low on a robust stock. 

However, a major criticism of 

the fishery by some 

stakeholders is the perception of an inadequate monitoring program for both catch and bycatch in 

the fishery. The industry is working with fisheries management agencies and advisory bodies to 

develop a more vigorous monitoring program. Industry has identified the need for development of 

a fisheries code of conduct and a cooperative relationship with the NMFS Northeast Observer 

Program. As proposals move forward on monitoring alternatives for the fishery the industry has 

been active in seeking funding for monitoring, establishing standards for sampling and catch 

estimates; and has conducted numerous education and outreach meeting for captains and the 

observer program to foster greater understanding of the goals of the monitoring program and the 

needs of the fishery. 

Mary Beth Tooley 

O’Hara Corporation, USA 

Benefits of cooperative research as seen by the Gulf 

Fishermen’s Association in Florida 

William Ward 

Gulf Fishermen’s Association, Florida, USA 

Will manages a Cooperative Research Project for the Gulf Fishermen’s Association (GFA). GFA 

is a commercial fisherman’s association promoting environmentally friendly and sustainable 

fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Will is a third generation grouper fisherman turned 

retail/wholesaler. He has been fishing for 25 years or so. He has seen a contribution of scientific 

data to the benefit of the industry and NMFS SEFSC. The project has made a big difference in 

the fishermen’s attitude towards scientific data collection and allows the scientists to see how the 

fishermen work. I currently manage a Cooperative Research Project CRP for Gulf Fishermen's 

Association. I have seen the myriad of benefits our project has brought to the industry, NOAA'S 

Southeast Science Center and scientific data collection. It (the CRP) has made a big difference in 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 172
 

our fisherman's attitude about scientific collections and given the scientist a hands-on view of 

how we operate. 

Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Question/Comment

Lisa Borges 

European Commission 

Belgium 

My question is for all panelists, but directed 

to John Gauvin. The commission wants to 

incentivize collaborative research between 

fishermen and researchers. So we get 

innovative ideas for our policy on discards. 

Now I couldn’t really understand what was 

your incentive to work for the Three vessels. 

I wanted you to explain, but I wanted to ask 

the panel. Incorporating any incentive is 

always a challenge. I want your opinion on 

what an incentive could be for fishermen to 

work together with scientists and managers. 

Response 

John Gauvin 

Best Use Cooperative 

USA 

We benefit if we can reduce halibut 

mortality by being able to catch more target 

fish. That’s the general incentive. 

Specifically to do an exempted fishing 

permit, which is a research project where we 

could fish outside of the regulations in terms 

of how we handled halibut and potentially 

reduce halibut mortality rates, we needed a 

permit to fish in a mode different from 

what’s allowable. 

The incentive specially was (although 

fishermen were using their own groundfish 

allocations through the co-op and their 

halibut by-catch allocations) if they could 

reduce the mortality, they would be credited 

to savings in mortality and potentially be 

able to do more fishing. Not get closed 

down by halibut by-catches early. So that 

was a very direct incentive that we needed to 

have to make sure fishermen would sort all 

that fish and do what they had to. 

Generally in Alaska we’ve got a number of 

different approaches to cooperative research 

that if it’s an exempted fishing permit you 

might even ask for an additional allocation 

of groundfish or by-catch to be able to test 

something if it has benefit to the fishery, if 

you’re willing to make the information that 

you bring about available to everyone. 

That is available sometimes because we 

don’t actually catch our entire allowable 

biological level of fishing, so extra fishing 

doesn’t create an impact on the resource. 

Question/ Comment 

WIlliam Ward 

Gulf Fishermen’s Association 

USA

That was a very good question about maybe 

a little different perspective regionally how 

you can build incentives. 

In our area in the Gulf of Mexico there are 

two groups of fishermen. Well, there are 

lots of groups of fishermen, but let’s break it 

into two groups if we will. Those that 

already have the incentives already, which 

are because of the lack of data, because 

we’re data poor fisheries the incentive’s 

already there. They’re looking up at bottom. 

They’re looking up at every time it’s being 

taken from them. 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 173
 

So for them, the incentive’s already built in. 

They know that they’ve got to get good data. 

So in essence that should be a selling point 

The second group, for the other group that 

aren’t willing to work with you on that we’ll 

just keep working and educating them on the 

value of that if you will. Neanderthal comes 

along slow and long, but it will come along. 

That’s a process that I have to fight with, we 

as industry representatives fight with all the 

time and we encourage all of you to do that 

because I think sooner or later they will 

come along if we keep on chipping away at 

it. Good question. 

Question/ Comment 

Bjorn Stockhausen 

Joint Research Center of the European 

Commission 

Italy 

I have also a question for John regarding 

the halibut discard mortality. You had a 

huge decrease in handling time; down to 26 

minutes. Maybe it’s a bit too specific, but 

there are studies that suggest that even 

halibut needs less handling time to survive. 

Also there is delayed mortality which 

suggests that after ten days there’s still 

mortality happening when the fish is already 

released back. Is there a possibility for you 

to reduce this handling time even further and 

did you evaluate the delayed mortality? 

Response 

John Gauvin 

Best Use Cooperative 

USA

We’re working in a very cold area in terms 

of ambient temperatures on deck. I think 

that could mean that the other study may not 

be relevant to what we’re doing. I don’t 

know where the other study came from. 

 The bottom line is we used the approved 

viability assessment techniques that are used 

generally to assess and those are based on 

science that’s looked at, releases and 

holding them and looking at latent mortality, 

etc. So that should have been incorporated. 

As to the bigger question, could we do it 

faster, that’s a huge and actually interesting 

question because the fishermen could have 

swore we found out in ten minutes. Because 

we had to measure every fish and do 

viability on every fish, in some cases that 

backlog there was increasing the time before 

they got back in the water. 

What we were measuring the entire time 

from the time we pulled up the net until the 

time they were back in the water. So I think 

why we’re interested in doing a sub-sample 

is to speed that process up so we’re not 

doing viability assessment and killing them 

at the same time with the added time. 

Question/ Comment 

Julie Bonney 

Alaska Fish Data Bank 

USA

We’ve been investigating using EM. I have 

a question for Eric. When you talked about 

the issue of confidentiality in terms of the 

data that you were going to be generating, 

were you struggling with the idea of 

confidentiality in terms of trade secrets, in 

terms of where fishermen fish or are you 

more concerned about legal ramifications in 

terms of injury to crew, the ability for an 

NGO to foil your data? I’m looking for; A: 

What kind of confidentiality issues you are 

struggling with and, B: What kind of 

solutions that you may have. 

Response 

Eric Brazer 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s 

Association 

USA 

The short answer is all of the above. Who 

has access to that data, what is the pathway 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 174
 

that that data flows through from the vessel 

through the analysis, and how is the data 

stored. I mentioned access to the data. 

There’s a large concern from the fishing 

industry that this data could be taken out of 

context and I think it’s a valid concern. 

Once you have something on film, once you 

have an image or a video it exists in 

perpetuity until it’s deleted. We’re still 

trying to address “How do we extract the 

data we need from it while minimizing any 

sort of harmful implications to the 

fishermen” and it’s an ongoing project. 

Question/ Comments 

Kim Dietrich 

Consultant 

USA 

I have a multi-level question about the 

sector system. One is I’m wondering if 

there’s a body that’s going to review these 

monitoring plans and are there going to be 

some consistent elements that will be 

required in all of them. 

I’m asking this because as a data user 

sometimes you perform an analysis and your 

data is in one format, but it seems like this 

sector system you’re suddenly going to have 

varying degrees of data quality and when 

you have to extrapolate by-catch rates or 

something like that it gets way more 

complicated when you have multiple 

collection systems. 

Then, I’m wondering how this sector system 

will address the loss of biological 

information that your current observer 

program is already collecting, so things like 

age structures and protected species 

interactions. 

Response 

Eric Brazer 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s 

Association 

USA 

In terms of the review, each sector is 

required to submit an operations plan by 

September 1st of this year in order to 

operate on May 1st of next year. That 

operations plan is reviewed and finalized by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

There’s also opportunity for public input and 

review as well. 

When we’re dealing with a network of 

sectors, up to 19 potential sectors, there are 

going to be consistency issues. To an extent 

we’re doing a good job of streamlining this 

within the industry. We may have 19 

sectors, but in terms of the industry leaders 

there’s really only a handful of us and we 

attempt to do our best to work very closely 

to ensure that we can streamline this as 

much as possible. 

There will be varying degrees of data quality 

and we’re very interested to ensure that we 

don’t lower the bar inadvertently by failing 

to address this. 

Finally, there won’t be a loss of biological 

data in the context that you mentioned. 

Whatever catch monitoring program sectors 

have to implement will be over and above 

the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, 

so that data collection will still occur, but 

this will be focused specifically on catch 

monitoring. 

Comment 

Vito Giacalone 

Northeast Seafood Coalition 

USA 

We’ve been working closely with NMFS 

and they’ve been holding workshops. One 

of the key things we’re looking for is to 

have format that is uniform. How ever the 

data streams end up going, Fisheries 

Statistics is going to have their way that they 

want the data to be received and that’s 

probably going to rule I think as far as the 

data format. 

All of the systems that are collecting the 

data are going to ultimately have to have it 

in that one format that goes to FSO. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 175
 

Comment 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

My final comment on that since I’m 

involved with that program in developing 

the at sea monitoring program, we are 

working closely with the industry. We’ve 

held two workshops at our regional office in 

Gloucester to come up with some standard 

guidelines and a template that the fishermen 

will have to use in their operations plan. 

We’re standardizing the training as well as 

the data quality checks and ensuring that the 

multiple data collection systems can easily 

be integrated and be used real-time. 

We have a third workshop coming up on 

August 5th for interested service providers 

in Woodshole to get more information. 

Question/Comment 

Craig Faunce

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Just a personal thanks to all the participants. 

I found all the talks very informative and 

professionally presented. 

David, but you did briefly mention that with 

the initial implementation of the EM 

component of the groundfish project there 

was concern in the fishery in adopting and 

acceptance and data quality. 

I was wondering if you could just take a 

moment to comment or elaborate a little bit 

on that. Did you find acceptance and those 

issues resolved within a timeframe of weeks, 

months, years? 

Panel Session 8 question and answer 

Response 

David Boyes 

Arbegar Fishing Co. Ltd. 

Canada

To some extent the fishermen that elected to 

stay and fish under this new program were a 

self-selected subset of the industry because 

some people just baled. They said, “I’m not 

going to do that. I’m not going to take a 

camera and I’m going to sell out.” 

We have an old cohort of captains. I think 

the average age is 58. The younger guys 

though seem to accept this much more 

readily. It’s interesting to note that people 

who were really very much opposed or very 

skeptical about it in the first year or two of 

the program are now some of the strongest 

supporters. 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 176
 

We’ve been using ITQ management for 19 

years in the halibut and sable fish fisheries. 

I think came on in ’96. We didn’t finish 

ITQ-ing the other groundfisheries until 

2006. So ling cod and dog fish came on 

then, as well as zeden, which is rock fish, 

but it’s complicated in that halibut did hold 

some rights to rock fish prior to that. 

So it’s a mixed bag, but it took time. It took 

years for people to get used to it and there 

was lots of people who were and are still 

mad about it. 

Question/ Comment 

Melany Haggard 

MRAG Americas 

USA

I’ve worked in the Alaska Groundfish 

Program, as well as Hawaii Pelagic Longlining. My question is for Mary Beth. I’ll 

start by admitting that I don’t really know 

much about the Atlantic herring fishery, but 

you mentioned many ways the industry is 

supportive of observer coverage and better 

estimates of catch volumes. 

I’m curious to hear more about the obstacles 

preventing actual weights of the catch as 

opposed to estimates. Has the idea of 

incorporating flow scales into your fishery 

been suggested or researched? 

Response 

Mary Beth Tooley

O’Hara Corp 

USA

It has been suggested, however, the industry 

thinks it’s really not very feasible. We are 

wet boats, in that the vessels are pumping 

fish aboard into RSW tanks. So you have a 

lot of water, lot of fish. Obviously we are 

trying to minimize the amount of water to a 

certain extent, but you’d have to have a flow 

scale on deck and with open sea conditions, 

we just don’t think that that’s very feasible. 

Also a lot of the fishermen really feel that 

the volumetric measurement system they’ve 

used in the past is accurate. They want to 

get paid for all their fish. So they do want to 

have accurate estimates of that catch. 

The people who buy the fish don’t want to 

pay for more than what they get. So from 

the fishermen’s perspective they have a 

comfort zone with the way they’ve been 

doing it. 

I think we do need to make it better and just 

from the actual weighing, fish, they’re 

pumping aboard a vessel 100 ton of fish in 

half an hour, 40 minutes. It’s a lot of fish 

coming aboard fast. When the fish come off 

the boats it’s the same thing. 

Question/ Comment 

Allen Kramer 

West Coast Groundfish Observer Program 

USA 

First I’d just like to show that I appreciate 

the proactive nature of all of your 

organizations. I find it rather refreshing 

My question is for Eric. I’m not really 

familiar with New England management, 

but “Are your sectors exclusive to particular 

individuals or if you were successful in your 

management and perhaps your quotas were 

increased for that area could fishermen from 

other areas of the state or other states come 

in and fish in those areas?” 

Response 

Eric Brazer 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s 

Association 

USA

Yes, the sectors are open to anybody who 

would agree to live within the standards of 

accountability that the sector sets. The 

sector is run by a board of directors and they 

set the contract and the harvesting rules. As 

long as fishermen agree to live within those 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 177
 

rules then they’re more than welcome to join 

the sector. 

We’ve had our sectors up and running since 

2004. Starting next year the sector concept 

is really going to take off and it’s going to 

be a lot more comprehensive. So the 

addition of new members, new gear types, 

new fishing areas, new home ports is going 

to require additional analysis and additional 

justification in both the operations plan and 

the environmental assessment. 

But the short answer is yes, they’re open, 

they’re self-selecting, they’re voluntary

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 178
Panel Session 9: 

What specific issues are important to non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs) regarding fishery monitoring? 

Moderator: Vicki Cornish, Ocean Conservancy 

Speakers 

Keith Davis – USA 

The Association of Professional Observers (APO): Strengthening fisheries monitoring through advocacy 

and education, since 1995. 

Elizabeth Griffin – USA 

The application of observer data by NGOs in advancing policies for protected species conservation. 

Jay Lugar – Canada 

Data requirements in Marine Stewardship Council Certification. 

Chris Robbins – USA 

Fisheries monitoring in the recreational sector: Challenges and opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Peter Baker – USA 

Slippage in the commercial fishing industry. 

Introduction to the session 

Among the concerns are providing a forum for addressing issues important to non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs) regarding fishery monitoring is such as providing research and scientific 

advice, assisting in the development of best fishing practices, provision of funding for fisheries 

resource issues, and influence through litigation and the political processes are among them. But 

the primary reason involves the idea and challenge of possibly affecting changes for resource 

management through an organization not in the Federal sector. 

As a fellow member of the NGO community, I am pleased to present to you our speakers, 

Elizabeth Griffin from Oceana, Peter Baker from the Pew Environmental Group, Keith Davis 

form the Association of Professional Observers, Jay Lugar from the Marine Stewardship Council, 

and Chris Robbins from the Ocean Conservancy. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 179
 

The Association for Professional Observers (APO): 

Strengthening fisheries monitoring through advocacy and 

education, since 1995 

Keith G. Davis1, Alicia Billings2, Ebol Rojas3

Fisheries Observer/APO Board, USA1, Lotus Web Design and Consulting/APO Board, 

USA2; Fisheries Observer/APO Board, Uruguay3

In May 1995, five Fisheries Observers waiting for vessel assignments 

out of Kodiak, Alaska - discussing the poor treatment of observers by 

observer providers in the region - decided to take action by founding the 

Association for Professional Observers (APO). 

Founding Actions: 

• Summer 1995: The first Mail Buoy, the APO’s newsletter, 

published 

• 1996 - 1997: the APO rallies for Observer representation at the 

Fisheries Council level and helps initiate representation by way of 

an employment union.

Founding Principles: 

• Advocate for and increase awareness of Observers’ rights 

• Gain a voice in the political mechanism that drives Observer Programs 

• Build an awareness that Fisheries Observers are an essential component to the sustainable 

management of resources 

Prior APO Board Members1

: 

• Erika Acuna, Stock Assessments, NOAA; Steve Copps, Senior Policy Analyst; NOAA; 

Kim Dietrich, Natural Resources Consultant; Tracey Mayhew, Observer Union 

Representative; Mandy Merklin, Environmental Consultant; Suzanne Romain, Marine 

Biologist, Independent; Gillian Stoker, Graduate Studies Student; Teresa Turk, 

International Observer Program Coordinator; NOAA. 

Historical Overview (Conference History): 

The APO has traditionally worked many of its projects around the schedule of the Conferences in 

the IFOMC Series. The APO has been represented at all of the Conferences and has been a 

consistent influence to its success and outcomes. 

1st (Seattle, 1998) Conference2

; APO Representation: Teresa Turk:

• North Pacific SDM: “real and apparent conflicts...” 

• Retention: “high turnover rate may indicate that observers feel discouraged and 

unmotivated by their working conditions.” 

• Safety: “observers in some programs could be fired and replaced for refusing to board a 

vessel they considered unsafe.” 

2nd (St. John’s, 2000) Conference 3

; APO Representation - Kim Dietrich:

• Observer Bill of Rights (OBR): The idea to establish an OBR started with the APO in 

1997, and the Observer Bill of Rights (OBR4

) document was created as the outcome of a 

workshop and panel/discussion session led by Teresa Turk and Kim Dietrich at the 2nd 

Conference. 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 180
 

3rd (New Orleans, 2002) Conference5; APO Representation - Kim Dietrich, Suzanne Romain, 

Gillian Stoker, and Tracey Mayhew:

• National Observer Support Standards 

• Safety issues and Incentives to improve safety 

• Evaluating Contractor Performance 

• Challenges of Effective Observer Training 

Jerry Dzugan concluded a 3rd Conference session by paraphrasing Sir Walter Scott: “It’s not data 

you’re gathering, it’s risk.” 

4th (Sydney, 2004) Conference6

; APO Representation7 - Mark Wormington, Dave Wagenheim, 

and Keith Davis:

• Conflict of Interest: “Explicitly define professional duties of all participants... ” 

• ObserverNet: “online forum to discuss topics such as sampling techniques, data use, vessel 

safety and accommodations, and compensation. 

• Heightened Observer Program Standardization and Communication 

5th (Victoria, 2007) Conference8

; APO Representation - Liz Mitchell, Brad Justin, and Keith 

Davis:

• Membership on Observer Professionalism and Observer Safety Working Groups 

• Short-story Book project proposal 

• Ecosystem-based Management 

• APO poster presentation 

Other APO Accomplishments: 

• Mail Buoy: important avenue for disseminating fisheries information for 14 years 

• Letter Writing: input into rule changes that influence the lives of Observers 

• Web Resources: the APO website is an increasingly important resource for understanding 

the Observer profession 

• Observer Recruitment and Retention Study (2005): Contracted by the US National 

Observer Program (NOP) – Later formalized into NOP Report 

The APO Today: 

• Mission Statement: the Association for Professional Observers (APO) is a non-profit, 

non-governmental organization whose mission is to strengthen observer programs through 

advocacy and education. Our goal is to facilitate the exchange of fisheries information 

while providing an important source of fisheries observer program and fisheries observer 

data-use information. It is our intention that the results of our activities may encourage the 

recruitment and retention of professional observers and foster the best quality observer 

data for the purposes of conservation and the responsible management of marine living 

resources. 

Current (2009) APO Board: 

• Liz Mitchell: President; Dave Wagenheim: Vice President, ObserverNet; Keith Davis: 

Secretary, Mail Buoy Editor; Alicia Billings: Treasurer, Web Master; Ebol Rojas: APO 

Board, Associate Mail Buoy Editor; Mark Wormington: APO Board; Brad Justin: APO 

Board 

APO Reconstruction (Focus Area) Objectives: 

• Accommodate the APO’s Mission and visions in a more directed manner 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 181
 

• Optimize the utility of APO resources 

• Help APO Members become more involved 

Focus Areas: 

• Education and Outreach9

o Objectives 

 Support the dissemination of educational information 

 Increase and improve the utility of fisheries resources available to the 

public 

 Reach out internationally among stakeholders 

o Primary Projects: 

 Mail Buoy newsletter; 906 Subscribers 

 Eyes on the Seas, collection of observer stories 

• Observer Data10

o Objective: 

 Provide resources regarding issues and take action upon issues related 

to: public access to Observer data; collection protocols; training and data 

quality control standards; service delivery model structuring; and, rules 

that impact the independence and integrity programs 

o Projects: 

 Public Access to Observer Data 

 North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program Overhaul 

 Implications and Trends of Electronic Monitoring 

• Observer Health, Safety, and Welfare11

o Objective: 

 Address issues such as: working conditions and emergency procedures; 

safety training, rules, and standards; drills, inspections, compliance and 

enforcement; and, protection of observers’ livelihood 

o Projects: 

 Catalogue of Observer Casualties, Injuries, and Near Misses 

 Globally Outlawing Observer Harassment and Interference 

 Implementation of an Observer Bill of Rights 

• Observer Labor and Professionalism12

o Objectives: 

 Identify initiatives associated with fostering heightened observer 

professionalism 

 Address issues that have bearing on the fair and equitable labor rights of 

Fisheries Observers. 

o Projects: 

 North Pacific Groundfish Observer Union Negotiation Survey, For 2010 

Contracts 

 Implementation of an Observer Bill of Rights 

Outlook, from Members (Feedback Survey Results):

• Observer Professionalism Central: on-line location that acts as a job site where observers 

and contractors/providers from around the world can meet. Observers can post a profile 

with their education level and experience. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 182
 

• Build Greater Overall Stability: work towards building greater financial and 

administrative stability within the organization so that the APO can be more valuable for 

its members by tackling its mission objectives more effectively. 

Outlook, from Board13:

• Business Plan: establish a business plan (2 year), designed with multiple options 

• Fund Raising: membership recruitment, grant writing, source funding options. 

• Staff: currently we are 100% volunteer run. We would like to have the funding to hire at 

least one part-time employee. 

Closing: 

• Fisheries Conservation Need Statement: 

o “Global fisheries are in crisis: marine fisheries provide 15% of the animal 

protein consumed by humans, yet 80% of the world's fish stocks are either fully 

exploited, overexploited or have collapsed.” - Camillo Mora, Management 

Effectiveness of the World's Marine Fisheries (2009)

14. 

• Professional Observer Need Statement: 

o The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations reports 

that “There is a direct relationship between the professionalism and morale of 

observers and the quality of the data they collect,”15 and the integrity of an 

observer programme is directly linked to the professional ethics of its observers. 

Notes: 

1. This is not a complete list of all Prior APO Board Members. For more information on prior APO board 

members, please contact us: apo@apo-observers.org 

2. McElderry, H., Karp, W.A., Twomey, J., Merklin, M., Cornish, V., & Saunders, M. 1999. 

Proceedings of the First Biennial Canada/U.S. Observer Program Workshop. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NFS-AFSC-101. 113p. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ifomc2009/1st%20IFOC%20Proceedings%20Seattle.pdf 

3. Anon. 2000. Canada - U.S. Fisheries Observer Program Workshop - Proceedings. NMFS 

and DFO, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada. 52p. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ifomc2009/fisheriesprogramrev.pdf 

4. Link directly to the OBR document at: www.apo-observers.org/docs/ObserverBillofRights.pdf 

5. NMFS. 2004 Proceedings of the Third International Fisheries Observer Conference. U.S. 

Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-64, 192p. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ifomc2009/ThirdProceedings2002IFOC.pdf 

6. Mcvea, T.A, Kennelly, S.J. 2005. Proceedings of the 4th International Fisheries Observer 

Conference. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Cronulla Fisheries Research Center of Excellence, 

Cronulla, Australia. ISBN 1 9209 12 20 2. 230pp. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ifomc2009/4th%20IFOC%20Proceedings%20Sydney.pdf 

7. Note: None of these APO members were APO Board members at the time, though all are now 

8. McVea, T.A and Kennelly, S.J. (ed.), 2007. Proceedings of the 5th International Fisheries 

Observer Conference –15 – 18 May 2007, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. NSW Department of 

Primary Industries, Cronulla. Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence, Cronulla, Australia, 412 pp. ISBN 

978 0 7347 1861 7. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ifomc2009/Proceedings_ALL_FINAL_170907.pdf 

9. Link directly to the Education and Outreach Focus Area page: http://www.apo-observers.org/education 

10. Link directly to the Observer Data Focus Area page: http://www.apo-observers.org/data 

11. Link directly to the Observer Health, Safety, and Welfare Focus Area page: http://www.apoobservers.org/health 

12. Link directly to the Observer Labor and Professionalism Focus Area page: http://www.apoobservers.org/labor 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 183
 

13. Check out the APO and Become an APO Member Today. www.apo-observers.org/join General Email: 

apo@apo-observers.org 

14. Mora C, Myers RA, Coll M, Libralato S, Pitcher TJ, et al. (2009) Management Effectiveness of the 

World's Marine Fisheries. PLoS Biol 7(6): e1000131. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131 

15. Davies, S. L.; J. E. Reynolds (ed.). 2002. Guidelines for developing an at-sea fishery observer 

programme. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 414. Rome, FAO. 116 pp. 

The application of observer data by NGOs in 

advancing policies for protected species conservation 

*Elizabeth Griffin1, Beth Lowell1, Michael Hirshfield1, Courtney Sakai1

Oceana, Washington, D.C, USA1

In the United States, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play a significant role in securing 

funding to support fisheries observer programs. Subsequent data is then used to hold the 

government accountable for its legal obligations to manage protected species and to develop 

bycatch reduction options. 

In Oceana’s work to reduce bycatch of non-target fish, sea turtles, marine mammals and other 

marine wildlife, a pattern has emerged. First, a suspected problem spurs the acquisition of money 

for a low level of observer coverage. Observer data is then used to produce a bycatch estimate for 

the fishery of concern, which results in the development and implementation of mitigation 

measures. A higher level of observer monitoring is then needed to ensure that bycatch reduction 

efforts are working, which requires more money. Finally, as new observer data is analyzed, 

bycatch mitigation measures are altered as needed based on the new information, thus continuing 

the cycle. As highlighted by the following case studies, NGOs can play an essential role in 

helping to drive this cycle. 

In fiscal year 2005, no dedicated funding 

existed for fisheries observers in the 

bottom longline fisheries targeting reef 

fish and sharks in the Gulf of Mexico 

and South Atlantic. Based on concerns 

over fish and sea turtle bycatch, Oceana 

began lobbying 

Congress to include funding in the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) budget to establish pilot 

observer programs in these fisheries. 

Over the next few years, observer 

coverage increased, albeit to a low level, 

in fisheries using bottom longline gear in 

the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS then used the 

observer data collected from July 2006 

through 2007 to produce a bycatch 

estimate of nearly 1,000 sea turtles in the 

bottom longline fisheries targeting reef fish over the 18 month period1

. These takes proved to be 

nearly 8 times the level authorized in the 2005 Biological Opinion, which was based on logbook 

reporting. Upon receipt of this new information, Oceana began working with other

Figure 1: Figure 1: The Circle of Life. An illustration of 

the cyclical path of observer data-based management 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 184
 

NGOs, commercial fishermen, and the federal government to reduce turtle takes in the Gulf of 

Mexico reef fish fishery. Oceana and NGO partners asked the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council to vote on an emergency closure of the fishery to allow for sea turtle 

protection during the development of a longer-term solution. The Council indeed voted in favor 

of the emergency closure and NMFS put the decision in place. Oceana is now in the process of 

developing long-term solutions, which the Council is expected to adopt in August, 2009. Close 

monitoring of the reef fish fleet will be necessary to ensure that sea turtle bycatch is being 

reduced to the expected level. In addition, a large portion of the bottom longline effort is expected 

to shift to vertical line fishing. Increased monitoring of this gear type will also be needed to 

ensure sea turtle bycatch only occurs at very low levels and that other unexpected consequences 

do not occur. Therefore, the cycle continues as Oceana returns to Congress to lobby for more 

money. 

Oceana’s role in marine mammal Take Reduction Teams (TRTs) illustrates another example of 

how this circular process can be used to enhance conservation of protected species. A TRT is a 

stakeholder team of representatives from the fishing industry, fishery management councils, state 

and Federal resource management agencies, the scientific community, and conservation 

organizations. Such a team convenes when necessary to reduce marine mammal bycatch in a 

particular fishery. Oceana and other conservation groups often advocate for additional funding to 

support observers in fisheries suspected to have marine mammal bycatch issues. If extrapolations 

of observer data show the level of interactions to be higher than biologically-based limits put into 

place by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Act calls for the formation of a TRT. The team 

develops a Take Reduction Plan, which is the bycatch mitigation plan for the fishery of concern. 

These plans often include monitoring to ensure that bycatch is being reduced to acceptable levels. 

If the data extrapolations show this to not be the case, the team meets again to revisit the plan and 

the cycle continues. 

Fisheries observer programs collect invaluable information that can be used by conservation 

groups to identify fisheries that are likely to compromise the survival and recovery of protected 

species and to monitor bycatch mitigation efforts once they are put in place. While being 

successful in protected species conservation requires NGOs to be active in all steps of the cycle, 

the cycle starts with more eyes on the ocean. This vital first step is a time when NGOs can really 

make a difference. For example, from 2002 to 2008, Oceana’s focus on observer funding helped 

lead to a 125% increase in federal funds for this program. This funding has allowed for the 

acquisition of additional data for Oceana and other NGOs to use in advocating for improved 

protected species conservation. However, for this data to be useful to NGOs it must be made 

available and the process must be transparent. This is an area where the U.S. continues to 

struggle, with the trend moving towards less available data and a less transparent process. 

Notes: 

1. National Marine Fisheries Service, SEFSC. Estimated Takes of Sea Turtles in the Bottom Longline 

Portion of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishy July 2006 through 2007 Based on Observer Data. 

September, 2008. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 185
 

Data requirements in Marine Stewardship Council certification 

Jay Lugar 

Fisheries Outreach – Americas, Marine Stewardship Council, Seattle, WA , USA 

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) was created 10 years ago to empower market forces for 

the advancement of sustainable fishing practices. Fisheries voluntarily undergo assessment to the 

internationally developed MSC standard for environmentally sustainable fishing and, if 

successful, the fishery is then certified and products can be promoted through the use of the MSC 

label. MSC assessments review three main areas: target stock health, impact on the ecosystem 

and effectiveness of the fishery management system. Assessments are robust, data-driven and 

peer reviewed. The assessment process can identify specific areas of strength and weakness 

within the fishery. Weaknesses become conditions to a certification that are designed to improve 

performance or to develop and analyze additional data during the life of the certificate. Data 

quality is a key element in the process. 

The MSC movement has developed substantially in its 10 year history. As of mid-2009 there are 

47 fisheries certified to the MSC standard for a well-managed and sustainable fishery, 106 in full 

assessment and another 20-30 in confidential pre-assessment. Almost 2,500 products carry the 

MSC ecolabel in about 50 countries around the globe. Globally, nearly 400 million individual 

seafood items carrying the MSC logo were sold in the year preceding April 2009. 

The MSC standard is based on three Principles that consider target stock health (P1), impact of 

the fishery on the ecosystem (P2) and effectiveness of the fishery management system (P3). A 

number of outcome and information based criteria under each Principle stipulate minimum 

acceptable practice. Within this rubric an MSC assessment employs 31 performance indicators to 

score a fishery. A successful fishery must demonstrate minimum acceptable practice for every 

indicator and must also pass a higher threshold for the average of all indicators within each 

Principle. An indicator that falls below the threshold becomes the subject of a condition that 

must be met within a span of one to four years. 

The MSC assessment process uses independent third parties called certification bodies selected 

by the client fishery. Certifiers hire scientific experts and together make decisions according to 

the MSC standard. The certifier’s team considers all available stock assessment, scientific 

research and other information provided by the fishery representatives, the regulator, government 

and university scientists and other stakeholders who declare an interest in the fishery. The MSC 

process is transparent and encourages stakeholder involvement at all stages so that all valid 

perspectives and information about a fishery’s sustainability practices are considered. If 

successful, a fishery’s MSC certificate is valid for five years with annual audits to check progress 

on conditions and continued performance under the three Principles. 

Key elements in MSC assessments of interest to observation and monitoring organizations are 

requirements for information sources and their accuracy – independence being an obvious 

corollary. The assessment methodology includes the category “Information/Monitoring” in one 

of two P1 (stock health) components and in all five P2 (ecosystem) components. As an example, 

one P1 indicator states: “Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy.” The 

acceptable practice score requires regular monitoring of stock abundance and fishery removals at 

a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the rules that govern the harvest (which are 

evaluated under a separate indicator). If monitoring is not regular or lacking accuracy and 

coverage then a condition would be created to improve performance to the acceptable level. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 186
 

In another instance, a P2 indicator states: “Information on the nature and amount of 

bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the 

strategy to manage bycatch.” The acceptable practice score includes a requirement for 

qualitative and some quantitative information on the by-catch and sufficient data for 

detecting any increase in risk to the main bycatch species. If these information standards 

exceed current practice a condition would be developed. 

It is obvious that the range and nature of the current work by observer and monitoring programs 

to support fishery assessments are essential in MSC assessments. In fact, many MSC certified 

fisheries are successful because their information base is among the very best – transparent and 

independent. All MSC certified fisheries, however, have received conditions designed to increase 

the results of particular indicators through improved performance or better information. Two 

examples highlight the effectiveness of conditions and a role for IFOMC: 

− The US North Pacific halibut fishery was required in increase observer coverage in order 

to improve information for multiple MSC indicators under P2 – ecosystem impacts. The 

Public Certification Report prepared by Scientific Certifications Systems Inc. included a 

requirement to “Establish a scientifically defensible and comprehensive monitoring and 

reporting system for bycatch and discards taken directly from the halibut fishery.” 

− In a certified South African hake fishery significant achievement occurred under a 

requirement to investigate the incidental take of seabirds. A new observer program 

identified a significant bycatch of an average of 18,000 seabirds per year and as a result a 

mitigation plan and new practices were developed to reduce the take. Now less than 200 

seabirds are taken per year, over 98 percent improvement. 

Where do IFOMC participants and the MSC program coincide? Two areas should be apparent: 

delivering solid, independent and transparent data to MSC assessments and helping certified 

fisheries meet conditions. Moreover, MSC certifications lead to a subtle shift in responsibility by 

placing onus on fisheries to demonstrate their sustainability practices. In this sense, MSC is a 

form of business development for many here today. MSC certified fisheries and those in 

assessment need independent observing and reporting mechanisms in order to meet our standard. 

You are there to assist. Together we can achieve the MSC objective – employing market forces 

to improve sustainability in the world’s fishery. 

Fisheries monitoring in the recreational sector: Challenges and

opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico

*Christopher S. Robbins1

Ocean Conservancy, Austin, Texas1 

In the United States the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) – 

the country’s primary fishery management law – mandates the use of Annual Catch Limits 

(ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) to end or prevent overfishing in U.S. managed 

fisheries. To implement these new provisions as effectively as possible in the recreational sector, 

managers need complete, accurate and timely information on fishing mortality. Higher quality 

scientific information reported expeditiously reduces uncertainty and leads to more responsive 

and effective management. Managers benefit from a monitoring system that helps them meet the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 187
 

legal requirements of setting and monitoring ACLs while fishermen are less likely to exceed their 

quota and be penalized for overages when catch information (landings + discards) is reported and 

analyzed in a timely manner. 

This issue of monitoring is important in Gulf of Mexico where millions of private anglers and 

more than 1,300 hundred federally permitted charter boat operators participate in the recreational 

fishery. ACL overages in this sector have the capacity to compromise the sustainability of 

popular species, such as red snapper, due to sustained high levels of effort delays in data 

transmission catch estimates reach managers weeks after the season ends. 

Discussion

Data collection methods used in Gulf of Mexico commercial fisheries are typically not 

appropriate for the volume of recreational fishing participants, and other methodologies have 

been applied. Since 1979 the Marine Recreational Fisheries Survey and Statistics Program 

(MRFSS) administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and similar but 

independent state surveys have been the main methods for collecting data on recreational fishing. 

MRFSS uses a combination of telephone surveys of coastal households and dockside anglerintercept interviews to estimate total effort and catch, respectively. In 2006 the National Research 

Council identified shortcomings with MRFSS that included unreliable methods of accounting for 

at-sea discards, angler recall bias associated with post-trip surveys and delays in the transfer of 

data to managers1

. This review prompted NMFS to redesign the MRFSS program and establish 

the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) in its place. 

While the two-part catch and effort survey methodology remains the core of MRIP, new 

technologies and innovative research could greatly improve the timeliness, reliability and 

management value of self-reported data collected from recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Some examples of technological advances and promising research from around the US include 

the following: 1) electronic logbooks to be designed for and piloted in the Gulf of Mexico charter 

boat fleet; 2) mobile phone reporting via text messaging in North Carolina; 3) Web-based 

reporting in Maryland; 4) on-board video monitoring for verifying discards; and 5) cooperative 

research evaluating factors affecting the survivability of released fish in Florida. While these data 

collection and verification methods have limitations of their own, they offer a variety of uses and 

potential benefits (Table 1). 

Implementing ACLs and AMs to end and prevent overfishing in the United States will depend in 

part on robust and effective fishery monitoring. The recreational sector accounts for a significant 

portion of fishing morality for many species in the Gulf of Mexico, but the sheer size and 

dispersed nature of the angling population complicates monitoring efforts. National changes to 

the recreational fishery data collection program and regional efforts to pilot new self-reporting 

technologies or engage anglers in applied research could help overcome these hurdles. 

Ultimately, improvements to recreational fishery monitoring programs in the Gulf and elsewhere 

must support the MSA’s new requirements for catch limits and accountability measures and strive 

to do so in a timely manner. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 188
 

Data collection method Uses and potential benefits 

Charter boat electronic logbooks Timely transfer of data to managers for responsive 

in-season management; avoids memory recall bias 

associated with post-trip surveys. 

Mobile phone and text messaging Widely available, relatively affordable method of 

reporting; significant potential for collecting key data 

from numerous anglers in near real-time. 

Web-based reporting or surveys Direct and timely submission of information to 

fishery managers; enables managers to determine 

length frequency for compliance reports, use 

sublegal fish for discard data, measure recreational 

effort with the fishery and obtain reports on all size 

classes of fish caught/released. 

Video monitoring Practical, unobtrusive method of validating at-sea 

fishing activity (discards) against logbooks; may 

reduce risk-averse behavior of clients/crew. 

Tagging discards for monitoring survivability Identify factors (depth) that contribute to higher 

mortality; may determine best practices to improve 

survivability of released fish. 

Table 1. Promising technologies or approaches to recreational fishery data collection and management in the Gulf 

of Mexico 

Notes: 

1. NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods. National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Uncertainty created through slippage 

*Peter Baker1, John Crawford1, Megan Mackey2

Pew Environment Group1

, Regional Marine Conservation Project2

Slippage, a variant on high grading, occurs in pump fisheries, both with and without observer 

coverage, when the contents of the net are partially or completely discharged without sampling 

the discarded catch. On otherwise observed trawl trips, this phenomenon forces observers to rely 

on either good-faith estimates from the captain regarding the size and species composition of the 

slipped catch, or on their own visual estimates of net contents, which are still largely underwater. 

Neither of these methods constitutes reliable sampling of the discarded catch. The problem of 

slippage is compounded by size-specific sorting grates, which function to pre-sort the fish at the 

fish pump before they are brought aboard, excluding larger marine life and debris. Because of this 

pre-sorting, the composition of the landed catch is different from the slipped catch, and cannot be 

used to estimate the composition of the slipped discards. Accurate catch monitoring data is 

critical to ensuring our nation’s fisheries are well managed. Slippage seriously undermines 

knowledge of catch composition in certain fisheries and represents a major challenge to observers 

and to the integrity of monitoring programs. This presentation examines the problem of slippage 

in mid-water pelagic fisheries and offers some solutions and suggestions for further research. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 189
 

Methods 

In this study we analyzed national and international fisheries to gain a better understanding of the 

prevalence of slippage events, and developed proposed conservation and management reforms to 

address this issue. 

Results/Discussion

New England Atlantic Herring: Catch data for the Atlantic herring fishery is conducted by the 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). In 2007, the NEFOP reported that 

approximately 6% of observed tows were partially discarded or slipped at sea without systematic 

sampling, and nearly 11% of observed tows were completely discarded without sampling1

. 

Because individual tows may contain well over 100 metric tons of marine life and cause 

substantial mortality to the catch, this degree of unsampled discarding is of great concern2

. 

Mid-Atlantic Mackerel3

 The amount of discards of large pelagics in the Atlantic mackerel fishery 

is largely unknown due to the inability of observers to view such discards because of the pumping 

mechanism. Large bodied species are prevented from entering the pump by the sorting grate, and 

are discarded while the cod end is submerged. 

Scotland4

: In one short study of discards in pelagic fisheries in Scotland, 11% of the total catch 

of maatje herring, comprising three complete hauls of 25, 15 and 5 tons, respectively, was 

discarded with the third haul slipped. In the mackerel fishery, approximately 4% of the total catch 

was slipped. 

United Kingdom5 In the UK mackerel and pilchard trawl fisheries, the cod-end was emptied 

without being brought on-board, thereby compromising the ability of the observer to record all 

marine mammal bycatches. 

England6

 Slippage has been recorded as an issue in one study when researchers were studying 

discards in an English pelagic trawl fishery for mackerel. Researchers noted that whole catches 

were sometimes slipped without ever being brought on board, forcing them to rely on the 

fishermen’s estimates of catch size and composition. 

Solutions: Conservation and management reforms to alleviate the problem of slippage involve 

improvements to monitoring and observer programs to ensure more reliable sampling of all catch. 

Reforms should include: 

• Monitoring of every tow, all trips with an observer on each vessel. 

• Ensure a complete sampling record of both pre-sorted catch and residual catch in the cod 

end after pumping, as was apparently done in one study of the Dutch pelagic trawl fishery 

off Mauritania, in which most discarded catch came on board7

. 

• Use of electronic monitoring, including mesh pressure sensors on nets and video records of 

catch pre-sorted on deck, to augment standard observer data. 

In addition, strong regulations and innovative solutions must be devised to minimize and account 

for slippage events that are unavoidable due to safety concerns. For instance, an overall cap on 

allowable slippage, combined with an assumed slippage event tonnage and a trip-termination 

requirement should be considered8

. 

Research Needs: More extensive studies of catch, bycatch, and discards in mid-water pelagic 

trawl fisheries, based on high quality sampling data, are essential to gaining more reliable 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 190
 

information about the actual impacts to target and non-target resources, and critical to ensuring 

sustainable fisheries management. 

Notes: 

1. Van Atten, Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, Presentation to Herring Oversight Committee, New 

England Fisheries Management Council, May 22, 2008. See http://www.nefmc.org/herring/index.html. 

 2. Davis, M.W. 2002. Key principles for understanding fish bycatch discard mortality. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 59 (11): 1834-1843. 

3. Appendix to Letter from D. Furlong, Exec. Dir. MAFMC, to J. O’Shea, ASMFC (May 11, 2009) (on 

file with Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 

4. G. J. Pierce et al. 2002. Results of a short study on by-catches and discards in pelagic fisheries in 

Scotland (UK). Aquatic Living Resources. 15: 327-334, 332

5. Y. Morizur et al. 1999. Incidental catches of marine mammals in pelagic trawl fisheries of the northeast 

Atlantic. Fisheries Research 41: 297-307, 303. 

6. Y. Morizur et al. 1996. By-catch and discarding in pelagic trawl fisheries. Final Study, Centre de Brest, 

France. 122p at 66. 

7. R. ter Hofstede, M. Dickey-Collas. 2006. An investigation of seasonal and annual catches and discards 

of the Dutch pelagic freezer-trawlers in Mauritania, Northwest Africa. 77: 184-191, 185. 

8. P. Baker et al. 2008. Herring Alliance Scoping Comments re: Amendment 4 to the Atlantic Herring 

Fishery Management Plan. p.8. 

Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Comment / Question 

Mary Beth Tooley 

O’Hara Corp 

USA 

I’m with the Small Pelagic Group. In terms 

of Peter Baker’s animated movie, it’s a little 

difficult to address all of the issues that 

came up in the movie. I think I had an issue 

with just about everything. 

For one thing, the pumps are not attached to 

the nets. They’re attached to a hose that 

comes off the deck of the vessel. It is then 

attached to the cod end for pumping. We 

use the same pumps whether we’re seining 

or trawling. These are not pumps that are 

specific to trawling operations. 

The statistics he used are different than the 

statistics that we’ve been recently using at 

the council for slippage events; 8.7 percent 

observed slip events. Of those, 48 percent 

are because the captain said there was not 

enough fish in the net to bother with. Over 

50 percent of the pounds that are slipped are 

due to mechanical malfunctions. These are 

all things that people on the vessels are 

working 24/7 on. They like to keep things 

working and they’re trying to catch fish. 

So as I said, there’s very little of the film 

that I agreed with, but it’s the first time I’ve 

seen it. It would take me a little while to go 

through it in detail. 

Question/Comment 

Julie Bonney 

Alaska Groundfish Data Bank 

USA 

I have a question for Keith. Observers in the 

US are required to have a four-year college, 

biological degree. I know in the Canadian 

model that they require a high school degree 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 191
 

and in that model they have a higher 

retention and they’ve been able to 

incorporate fishermen that have experience 

on vessels and have experience on the ocean 

and are very much into sustainable resources 

and good monitoring. 

Would the organization that you work for be 

willing to have a discussion about whether 

the four-year degree for observers is 

appropriate or could there be some other 

avenues in terms of people that might be 

qualified to enter the core? 

Response 

Keith Davis 

Observer/APO Board Member 

USA 

This is a subject that’s come up a lot over 

the years. Actually we’re addressing it in 

the observer professionalism working group. 

In the workshop we’re collecting 

information about employment standards 

committee as far as eligibility requirements 

on an international level. 

As far as the APO is concerned, we haven’t’ 

been working on that specifically, but I 

would definitely be interested in starting 

some sort of discussion about it. Personally 

I feel that it doesn’t need to be a requirement 

it depends on the objectives of the program 

and it depends on the resources that you 

have available, the employment resources 

you have in the area. You have to work with 

what you have, then try to build those 

standards up to a better level as time 

progresses and as you have better resources. 

I think it comes down to the objectives of 

the observer program and what you’re 

asking observers to do. In the North Pacific 

for example, they require that you have 

statistics background. 

I think that’s a good thing to require there 

because there’s information that you’re 

collecting in the random systematic 

sampling scheme that they have there in 

place that requires more of that background 

knowledge whereas other programs it might 

not require that. 

Question/ Comment 

Phil Bailey

Electric Edge Systems Group 

Canada

 My question is for Jay Lugar. I was just 

wondering how many fisheries have applied 

for certification and completed the process 

and of those how many actually fail to gain 

certification. 

Response 

Jay Lugar 

Marine Stewardship Council 

USA 

The number of fisheries that have applied 

would be the total of what is certified, which 

is 52, and the number in assessment now 

which is 112. So give or take 170 or so, 

including the ones that are under trial 

assessment and those are the ones that have 

come forward for full assessment. 

There’s another range of fisheries that would 

have done a confidential pre-assessment, 

which we may not know about until they 

would come forward. Over time we hear 

about a number of pre-assessments, but we 

don’t know until they formally come 

forward through a certifier who notifies us 

that this fishery has started a full assessment. 

Heretofore there has been on fishery that has 

failed certification. The reason for that, 

(what you may think is a skewed number) is 

that fisheries use the pre-assessment tool to 

determine if they have a good opportunity or 

likelihood of passing our assessment. 

So you’ll see a number of fisheries that may 

undertake a pre-assessment and say- “not for 

us right now”. There are a number of other 

examples where there’s other conservation 

groups working with those fisheries, use the 

pre-assessment tool to identify specific 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 192
 

elements that may require work or new 

methods and they go back, work with the 

fishermen and then come forward later on 

with, we would hope, for a full assessment. 

So I think that covers the gamut of your 

question. 

Question/ Comment 

Greg Williams 

Halibut Commission 

USA 

I have a question for Chris. I was interested 

in your recreational fishery presentation 

there particularly where it comes to 

monitoring and documenting or observing 

total mortality or total harvest. 

I’ve been gaining increased awareness and 

experience with the use of log books in 

recreational fishery for Halibut in Alaska 

and some of the difficulties in getting 

accurate, reliable data with that. I’d be 

really interested in some of your thoughts on 

verification of log book data, particularly in 

at least my case, we’ve got a quota limited 

fishery and the reliability of data reported 

through a log book. 

Response 

Christopher Robbins 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA

That’s a good question. Well I think there 

are two issues associated with verification of 

catch from a for hire vessel. One is 

landings. I think you can get at that through 

dockside sampling, so you have existing 

port samplers checking the coolers of 

anglers getting off charter boats. There is an 

existing system in place in the Gulf for that. 

 I think that the MRIP- for hire working 

group is looking group is looking at viable 

verification mechanisms. That’s one of 

them. 

Now the tricky bit is the discarding. If 

you’re going by or using a quota system, in 

theory those discards should apply to the 

catch limit. So, there are one of two ways. 

You can assign a person (independent 

observer) to document the discards or you 

can find some other passive means or 

mechanism, and cameras come to mind. 

Question/ Comment 

Bob Trumble 

MRAG Americas 

USA 

As an observer/provider I’d like to followup on Julie’s question and Keith’s comments 

on high school degrees and four-year 

biological degrees. 

When we ran the Hawaii observer program 

we had a number of observers who had only 

high school degrees. I’m not even sure all 

of them had that, but they were trained by 

Alulike. It was a wonderful program. 

Individuals went through a several week 

training in advance of the NMFS training. If 

they passed the Aloliki training, that 

qualified them to go into the NMFS training. 

Then they had to pass the NMFS training 

like any other observer. So it was a multiple 

selection process that filtered out the very 

best observers. These guys from Alulike 

turned out to be some of our best observers. 

They’ve got the most sea days. They’re the 

most dedicated. They’re really great 

observers. 

I would encourage anybody to at least think 

about how to develop this kind of a program 

because it does offer a widespread 

opportunity for people to come into the 

program and I think that that Alulike 

program demonstrates how you can do it, 

but I want to emphasize you’ve got to do it 

right because if you don’t do it right you’re 

going to end up with problems. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 193
 

Comment/ Response 

Keith Davis 

Observer/ APO Board Member 

USA 

I know some of the Aluliki observers down 

there and there are some really good 

observers. 

I didn’t quite answer completely what Julie 

had asked about as far as retention of 

observers. I could see how eligibility is 

finding a fine line between how you want to 

retain your employees in the system because 

with a four-year degree you can make the 

argument that it’s just a stepping stone to 

move up beyond the profession and that sort 

of thing. 

So often times if you can find someone that 

is working well and it comes down to proper 

training and support and that sort of thing 

and retaining a professional work force. It 

doesn’t necessarily have to be the eligibility 

standards. 

Question/ Comment 

Corrin Flora 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I have a question for Chris. You had 

mentioned one of your monitoring methods 

is telephone surveys. I was wondering if 

these are captain interviews or like 

telemarketer telephone surveys. 

Response 

Christopher Robbins 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA 

That’s a good question. I’m no expert on 

this. If there’s someone here from the 

Marine Recreational Information Program, 

they’d be in a better position to get into the 

particulars, but yes, telephone surveys are 

conducted on a random digit dial basis. 

They typically target coastal households for 

effort information. Then the angler access 

point surveys get the CPUE information and 

there’s an estimation procedure used to 

combine the two data sets to get at total 

catch and effort. 

The telephone surveys, that’s one of the 

issues that the NRC highlighted in its 

evaluation in that there are a fair number of 

anglers from non-coastal counties that come 

to the coast to fish. So how do you 

effectively capture those individuals in the 

sampling frame. 

Comment/ Continued Response 

Corrin Flora 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I was just wondering how much of a 

demographic do you feel you’re losing 

there? Probably about 80 percent of the 

people hang up on telemarketers. 

Response 

Christopher Robbins 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA 

I don’t know if it’s automated. It may be a 

live human on the other line. 

Question/Comment 

Georg Hinteregger 

Observer 

USA 

Vicki, you mentioned how important it is to 

the NGOs to lobby for observer coverage of 

getting money for observer work. I’m 

wondering if you’re also looking at the 

quality of the observer coverage that you’re 

going to spend the money on. 

Are you looking at service delivery models, 

like the Alaska system where you have 

multiple companies in competition with 

each other directly working for the industry. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 194
 

the kinds of problems that creates for good 

data and observers lifestyle. Are the NGOs 

engaged in the how observer programs 

should be run in addition to just getting them 

more money? 

Response 

Elizabeth Griffin 

Oceana 

USA

Yes it is something that we’ve been kind of 

keeping an eye on. It’s not something that 

we’ve actively engaged on across the board, 

but in key fisheries that we’ve looked at we 

have been paying attention to it. 

I know there are a lot of questions. We do a 

lot of work on turtle by-catch and the scallop 

fishery in New England. There are 

questions about industry funding versus 

government funding and how those systems 

are set up, but I do agree. It’s something 

that we need to be looking at on a broader 

level than just fishery by fishery. 

Response 

Vicki Cornish 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA 

I’ve realized that there are a lot of nuances 

in how observer programs operate and that 

most folks in the NGO community aren’t 

aware unless you are deeply entrenched in 

the process of how observer programs 

operate and are executed. 

So it’s a difficult process to insert yourself 

into. A lot of people say well, we need 

money for observer programs. Let’s just get 

the industry to pay. Of course, all the folks 

from industry know that that’s not always a 

viable option. 

But we do want to have more ownership of 

the fishery management process and 

bringing fishermen into that process or the 

ownership of fisheries through their direct 

payment for the monitoring requirements is 

one way to do it, but we are very careful that 

we like to see programs set up that are 

effective and that do have the highest quality 

of data because every dollar that we lobby 

for on the Hill is precious dollars for 

monitoring. 

We certainly want to see those dollars be 

used most effectively. So it’s in forums like 

this that observer programs are able to share 

information about how to operate more 

effectively that I think the NGO community 

should be more involved in to make sure 

that those dollars are being spent in the best 

way possible. 

Response/ Comment 

Georg Hinteregger

Observer 

USA 

If you recall was it a couple days ago Kyle 

Baker gave his wonderful presentation about 

reforming the protected species observer 

program in the middle earlier. I’m 

wondering if the NGO’s are aware of those 

efforts and are actively engaged in helping 

accomplish this. 

Question/ Comment 

Thuy Nguyen

WWF 

Vietnam 

I have question to Jay Lugar about the 

condition of the certification. In this 

developing country you have the observer as 

an independent party to monitor the fishery. 

So in a developing country like our country, 

is the fishery certified with the condition of 

data monitoring? We don’t have the 

observer or the third party. Does MSC have 

tools to measure the accuracy of the data 

monitoring by the fishery itself? 

 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 195
 

Response 

Jay Lugar 

Marine Stewardship Council 

USA

I know for a fact that the application of our 

program in some fisheries that would 

otherwise be called data deficient is more 

difficult. Often times it is fishery, 

developed fishery dependent information, 

fishermen derived information directly from 

the fishery. 

I think the answer is that we are definitely, 

the certifiers who would be reviewing the 

fishery according to our standard, would 

definitely take into account all the available 

sources of information and try to assess their 

accuracy and their applicability to the 

questions that are being asked about that 

fishery. 

There’s nothing to say that fishery 

dependent information or fishermen 

information fishermen themselves provide 

would not be considered. We don’t require 

independent data, but it would certainly be 

an advantage for a fisher to come forward 

with a selection of independent data that 

would help the assessment team understand 

what was accurate and what was just 

anecdotal. 

Finally the last thing I wish to mention is 

that we are, as of July of last year, we 

established a default assessment tree which 

we call the Fisheries Assessment 

Methodology. There are some data deficient 

fisheries or small scale fisheries that may 

have a hard time meeting the requirements 

in those indicators. 

So we have recently in January developed 

and will have a version two coming out at 

the end of this month what we call a risk 

based framework which is based on an 

Australian model that uses more of a 

discussion, a consultative mechanism rather 

than specific published data sources to help 

certify, pick out and derive sufficient 

information in which to make their 

determination. 

Those risk based frameworks are going to be 

essential to helping the situation in which 

you refer to help certifications in those 

examples. 

Question/ Comment 

Keith Davis 

Observer /APO Board Member 

USA 

I have a question to Jay also as far the 

quality of data from observer programs and 

different professionalism standards for the 

monitoring in developing countries. 

Is there anything in your certification 

process to ensure that the quality of data 

coming from those programs based on 

whether or not the observer has issues of 

severe harassment and that sort of stuff that 

could influence the outcome of the data and 

that sort of stuff in the fisheries that you 

certify? 

Response 

Jay Lugar 

Marine Stewardship Council

USA 

We don’t have a specific rubric that would 

identify good versus bad data. It would be 

up to the certifier to understand the sources 

of that data and to assess from that scientific 

assessment team’s perspective what the data 

means and then to interpret it according to 

our standard. 

So it’s possible that there could be slightly 

different approaches by different certifiers 

as to what data they would accept and what 

they wouldn’t, but they all have to meet the 

same criteria and they would have to 

publicly announce and be peer reviewed 

against what standard they think that fishery 

has achieved and what the data means. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 196
 

Response/Comment 

Amy Van Atten 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I just wanted to thank the panel and thank 

the NGOs for your time that you do spend 

on the Hill lobbying for money to support 

observer programs and monitoring 

programs. It’s very important, especially for 

the Herring Fishery since we’re discussing 

that this morning and this afternoon where 

we don’t have dedicated funds to direct 

towards that fishery in particular. 

I’m a little bit disappointed at the debut of 

the movie. I just feel in this forum it’s a little 

bit of a shame and a poor example of how 

NGOs can constructively work with 

observer programs towards a resolution to 

reduce discarding. 

I actually agreed with your slides, Mr. 

Baker, in the beginning, but there are some 

serious flaws to consider in requiring the 

observer to sample the entire pumping 

process, especially if it exceeds the capacity 

of the observer workload. It can take more 

than 18 hours to retrieve some of those nets 

and to expect an observer to sample 600,000 

pounds of fish over that period of time will 

be very difficult. 

Just to let everybody know, for the pilot 

whales there really is a very rare event of 

incidentally taking pilot whales in this 

fishery. 

Comment 

Peter Baker 

Pew Environmental Group 

USA 

As long as we continue to deny that slippage 

is an issue, we’re not going to solve the 

problem. I think that’s where I’d leave it. 

Question/ Comment 

Howard McElderry

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

I had a few comments to put out. I didn’t 

actually intend to speak about observer 

training or experience and qualification 

level, but just listening to the few comments 

that were made I thought maybe it might be 

appropriate. 

Because we wear the whole cycle of the 

program from initial investment and training 

and hiring to completion of the data and 

delivering it all the way through, I think that 

it’s caused us to be a lot more thoughtful 

about the hiring of people. There’s a 

tremendous amount of investment put in to 

just pre-screening people before they ever 

enter a training program and observer 

program. When I think about whether or not 

education, to the extent that’s important, I 

would agree it is, but I also think about 

someone’s understanding of the work 

environment well before they’re considering 

being an observer and also motivation and 

trainability. You can accomplish an awful 

lot in a training program, but they have to be 

receptive of that. I think those are success 

factors in our program. 

I also, being the person that was requesting 

that the M be added into what was the IFOC 

and looking at some of the mandate of the 

APO, I would encourage you to broaden 

your thinking about instead of looking at the 

pros and cons of electronic monitoring and 

how it fits and so on, I really think the real 

question is looking at the broad suite of 

monitoring tools that are needed in various 

fisheries and trying to figure out appropriate 

settings for where those might work 

together, independently and that sort of 

thing. 

I don’t think the observer community should 

feel threatened that there’s a technology 

that’s coming along that can offer vastly 

cheaper monitoring on certain fisheries. I 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 197
 

see it as being a real opportunity to capture 

certain parts of the fishery where it really is 

indeed a hazard to be there. So just look at 

it in the whole perspective. 

I stood up to ask Jay Lugar a question, 

which first I want to thank you for 

participating. In Victoria we tried very hard 

to get the MSC to come to the meeting 

because I think MSC has a really big part in 

just the monitoring community and I really 

hope that this is just the first of many times 

that we’ll see MSC at this meeting. 

My question though was when -- I am at a 

distance from MSC in the process, but it 

seems to me that the MSC process is almost 

about certifying the management framework 

around a fishery as opposed to the fishery 

itself. I’m just wondering what your 

thoughts were around that. 

 With certain fisheries, the interest from 

industry may be very high toward 

certification and there may be a lot that 

industry is interested in doing to try to 

achieve certification, but they might just be 

out of luck if their agency that’s providing 

all of that framework just isn’t up to the bar. 

Response 

Jay Lugar 

Marine Stewardship Council 

USA

It’s a perfectly valid question. I think it 

highlights the fact that when a given fishery 

wishes to seek MSC certification that it 

alone cannot get there. 

One of the essential elements in our process 

is that stakeholders can bring to bear 

information that they have a place, but it 

also puts a heavy burden on the management 

agency to bring and to provide the 

documentation and the process that they use 

to develop that documentation and 

information to the table so that the 

assessment team has a complete picture. 

There have been a number of examples 

where the fishery has used MSC 

certification to put their management agency 

in a corner and say without you doing what 

we need to have done we won’t get there 

and you and we can both benefit from the 

certification. 

So there are many motivations behind why a 

fishery would come forward and of what 

you speak is just really not a bad example of 

a non-market motivation. 

Response/Comment 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

I was just thinking that type of pressure, that 

sort of feedback loop would be really 

valuable in a lot of instances. 

Response/Comment 

Jay Lugar 

Marine Stewardship Council 

USA

Well it is in some countries in Europe and 

then some countries in North America the 

management regime has been quite resistant 

because they see it as something – a nonprofit organization doing what they in 

essence do, but in actual fact it can be used 

by fisheries as method to test on an 

international standard basis the performance 

of sustainability and many jurisdictions and 

two of the prime ones I think that have come 

180 degrees from being a little bit worried 

about the impact of MSC but have come 180 

degrees and they’re fully supportive( 

Norway and Canada)

A number of years ago in both countries the 

management authorities were quite reticent, 

but at least now in Canada, (I’m more 

familiar with that situation than in Norway 

where there are a number of fisheries under 

certification) but in Canada we had a distinct 

relationship with Fisheries and Oceans. 

They see the MSC as a tool to help them 

improve fisheries where they don’t have the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 198
 

same level of measurement over 

sustainability. 

So it’s a very cooperative relationship and 

we’re working quite hard with them because 

the other side of that relationship is that 

when certifications happen and conditions 

are developed it often puts an oneness on the 

management agency to do the kind of data 

collection that hasn’t been done and is 

needed now to bring the fishery up to a 

status where it won’t have any conditions 

(That’s assuming it can be certified) 

The time element and the person years it 

takes for a measurement agency to be able to 

address those issues is a factor. That was 

one of the factors why some governments 

were reticent in the beginning, but I think 

over the last couple of years there’s been a 

large movement to accept these factors, as 

long as the certifier and the fishery can work 

with the measurement agency to structure 

the action plans, to meet the conditions over 

a period of time. 

Comment 

Keith Davis 

Observer/ APO Board Member 

USA 

Yes. As far as electronic monitoring I think 

it’s part of the future of observer programs. 

We’re gearing towards that in a lot of 

aspects and I think it’s a good thing as far as 

coupling electronic monitoring with onboard observers and that and for programs 

that are unmonitorable by human observers 

you can actually get some information from. 

I know there are concerns in the observer 

community as far as thinking that it could 

take away jobs. So I would like to see this 

project with the APO develop and put forth 

some pros and cons on both sides and 

provide resources from all sides. 

Howard, if you do have any links to 

resources that you think would be useful to 

link to, please send them to me and we can 

start to develop on this project and try to 

show many different facets of the electronic 

monitoring future in observer programs. 

Comment 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

Yes, that’s great. We’d be happy to. I think 

you can look at all these tools as trying to 

define what the ideal setting would be and 

then work from there, but it’s a good 

approach. 

Question/ Comment 

Jennifer Lengares

A.I.S., Inc 

USA 

My question was actually in regards to the 

lobbying that’s done. Obviously as an 

observer I have an appreciation for funding 

for observer programs, but my question was 

do you have certain criteria that you apply to 

where you get funding from? 

I’m concern that funding from certain 

sources might reflect on the observer 

program and challenge their objectivity at 

least in the eyes of the public and in the eyes 

of the fishing community. So I’m curious if 

you have any criteria or standards that you 

look at. 

I’m not very familiar with lobbying so I’m 

not sure exactly what sources you get the 

funding from, but obviously for me there 

would be some concern particularly that if 

we’re being funded by a group or an 

individual that’s very controversial we 

wouldn’t want the observer program to be 

pulled into a political debate in that sense. 

We want to try to maintain objectivity. So I 

was just wondering how you decide the 

funding. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 199
 

Response 

Elizabeth Griffin

Oceana 

USA 

Right now all of our lobbying efforts are 

geared towards the U.S. Congress. So it’s 

all about educating Congress on how 

important these programs are. Some of it’s 

directed at key senators and congressmen 

from places where there’s an issue that we 

need to solve and some of it’s educating the 

entire Congress on the importance of good 

data for good management. So we have 

both of those categories of lobbying going 

on, but it really is all government money. 

There are other circumstances where you 

might have a cooperative research program 

that’s funded by a particular foundation or 

grant giving organization, but those 

wouldn’t normally be the same pools of 

observers. They’d be small scale 

cooperative research projects.

Comment/ Question 

Jørgen Dalskov 

National Institute for Aquatic Resources 

Denmark 

I have a comment concerning the herring 

fishery. In European waters there is a total 

herring landing of around two million tons. 

I used to work landings and I know of 

course they are slipping. They are 

discarding, but the magnitude of that we 

don’t know. 

But then I saw the movie, and I saw all the 

marine mammals in the trawls. We’re using 

double pair trawlers. We are using pelagic 

trawlers. We are using purse seiners in the 

European fisheries. 

In 2004 the European council adopted a 

regulation which should reduce the 

incidences by-catches of marine mammals 

in the pelagic fisheries. All member states 

had to conduct a pilot study for a two-year 

period where at least in some fisheries it was 

five percent coverage and in other fisheries 

it should be ten percent coverage to see the 

magnitude of incidental by-catches of 

marine mammals. 

I don’t have the exact figures, but it was 

very, very few by-catches. I can say for the 

Danish fishery we didn’t catch any. 

Response/ Comment 

Peter Baker 

Pew Environmental Group 

USA

Good, I’d be interested in seeing that. I 

don’t personally see five percent observer 

coverage where you allow slippage as being 

a bona fide sample that I would trust the 

future of marine mammal populations to, but 

I’m glad that you conducted a set study. 

Question/ Comment 

Bob Trumble

MRAG Americas 

USA 

We’re a certification body for the MSC. 

The risk based methodology of risk based 

framework that Jay mentioned is a very 

powerful tool for fisheries without much 

information, but I just want to point out that 

it’s not without risk to use the risk based 

framework because if you don’t have much 

data in a precautionary framework that the 

MSC requires you have to have a lot of 

supporting consensual agreement that the 

fishery works. 

The process works on the situation of worst 

plausible scenario. So fisheries are way 

better off collecting information and using 

the regular assessment if practicable because 

you’re in a much better situation of getting 

through. 

But for some fisheries that are too small 

with not enough value that are very 

precautionarily managed, the risk based 

framework is a great way to go. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 200
 

I don’t want to discourage anybody from 

thinking about it, but I want you to think 

about it really carefully before you get into it 

because it may not get you there, but the 

pre-assessment as Jay mentioned, will give a 

really good idea of the pros and cons of the 

fishery and what kind of additional 

information you may need to move forward. 

Question/ Comment 

David Boyes 

Fisherman 

Canada

We’ve been pursuing MSC certification, 

since 2003 for the area 2B, the BC halibut 

fishery. 

My question or the issue that I’d just like to 

bring forward, once again pertaining to the 

BC halibut fishery. We have an allocation 

framework between commercial and 

recreational, 88 commercial, 12 percent 

recreational. That was based on historical 

landings. 

We also have an incipient transfer 

mechanism between the sectors. Right now 

the recreational sector can lease fish out of 

the commercial sector. The issue that I 

think this observers group might like to 

consider is that right now the fish is going 

from a regime that is very tightly monitored, 

as I tried to outline in my talk, to a regime 

that is very loosely monitored. I think that’s 

an issue 

I think the NGOs might like to comment on 

it. We don’t know how far these transfers 

are going to go eventually, but we could be 

moving backwards in terms of good 

fisheries monitoring if the recreational 

sector isn’t brought up to an acceptable 

standard at some point in the future. 

Comment/ Response 

Jay Lugar 

Marine Stewardship Council 

USA

I’d just like to make a brief comment to that, 

not directly to your question, but only to 

point out that the MSC does allow wild 

capture fisheries to volunteer to come 

forward and that would include recreational 

fisheries. You could very well work with 

other partners to convince the recreational 

component to come forward to have their 

gear type assessed in the same fishery and 

hopefully wouldn’t take them seven years. 

In any event, it may be a methodology that 

you could use to have the same level of 

documentation and data requirements 

applied to them if you so chose. 

Comment/ Response 

Keith Davis 

Observer /APO Board Member 

USA

I’d like to comment as far as recreational 

fisheries and dockside monitoring. The APO 

hasn’t really focused as much on different 

types of monitoring beyond fisheries 

observers out on commercial fishing boats, 

but I suppose a lot of it can be translated to 

other monitoring programs that are 

developed beyond the commercial fisheries. 

And dockside monitoring, that was brought 

up to me recently that we don’t really pursue 

anything as far as the APO as far as 

dockside monitoring goes. 

Comment/ Response 

Vicki Cornish 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA 

Have you looked at the at sea monitoring 

proposal that it’s coming in under sector 

management and have you talked about this 

amongst the APO in terms of what that 

might mean for the observer program and 

the different responsibilities for at sea 

monitors versus observers? It’s a program 

that’s under development. I think it is 

Amendment 16 of the groundfish plan 

(looking at the use of at sea monitors with a 

little bit of a different requirement). 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 201
 

Response/ Comment 

Vicki Cornish 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA 

Perhaps I shouldn’t get into this too much 

since I’m just learning about Amendment 16 

myself, but I understand it has different 

requirements for eligibility and debriefing 

and responsibilities while at sea. It might be 

something to look into. 

Comment 

Chris Robbins 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA

Dave, in regards to your question about 

allowing the for hire sector into the IEVQ 

program and the potential for lowering the 

bar- I think we’re seeing the opposite in the 

Gulf. 

There is a segment of the for hire population 

that wants to establish its own sector within 

the larger recreational sector, but they 

realized that to do that they need to raise the 

bar of accountability and have in place the 

monitoring systems that will account for all 

their catch and they’re looking to the 

commercial model, the ITQ model. 

So in a sense the commercial ITQ model is 

raising the bar for that sector to be more 

accountable and to account for all catch, 

total mortality. So it’s an interesting angle 

that you’ve touched on. 

Question/ Comment 

Steve Kennelly 

New South Wales Department of Primary 

Industries, Cronulla Fisheries Research 

Centre of Excellence 

Australia

This is a contribution to that current 

discussion about recreational fishing and the 

need for monitoring there. There is a whole 

science associated with monitoring 

recreational fishing. I guess it’s something 

that’s fallen out of this particular series of 

conferences and that we don’t really 

consider that sort of thing too much in terms 

of all the work that’s done in Krill surveys 

and omnibus surveys and all sorts of stuff 

that people do about recreational fishing. 

Where I come from we have a lot of shared 

stocks between recreational and commercial 

fishing we often have to consider the 

management restrictions that are placed on 

the commercial sector and the effect that 

that has on what we call the recreational 

sponge, which means that yeah, you can be 

deciding on all these fish via restrictions you 

put on commercial fishermen, but it’s 

absorbed by this massive number of people 

who go fishing with a hook and line and 

catch one or two fish a day, but there’s 

millions of them so it has a big effect. 

So you do need to monitor that and you do it 

using very different methods, but they’re 

still out there and there’s a whole other 

science associated with the work around 

Krill surveys and recreational fishing 

surveys. 

I did have a question for Jay about the MSC 

certification process. You mentioned that 

it’s all about the certifiers and I was just 

wondering, “who certifies the certifiers and 

who certifies those people who certify 

them”. I mean in government we have a 

process where people called ministers do 

that and they get voted in or out according to 

their job, but I just wonder who’s actually at 

the end of the line in the MSC. 

Response 

Jay Lugar 

Americas Marine Stewardship Council 

USA

Good question. We certainly don’t know 

any MSC response or any population 

through elections, but certifiers must be 

accredited. There’s an organization called 

Accreditation Services International which 

monitors if you will, certifies the certifiers. 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 202
 

A certifier would apply to be accredited. 

They would go through a year long process 

of training and their first efforts would be 

reviewed by ASI. They’re constantly 

subject to being visited and reviewed, 

audited if you will by ASI as well. 

So that’s at arm’s length from us and at 

arm’s length from Bob Trumble as a 

certifier. Once they are accredited by ASI 

then they have full entitlement to proceed 

and offer their certification services around 

the world subject to audit once again. 

Comment 

Steve Kennelly 

New South Wales Department of Primary 

Industries, Cronulla Fisheries Research 

Centre of Excellence 

Australia 

Who picks ASI people? 

Response 

Jay Lugar 

Americas Marine Stewardship Council 

USA

ASI has been hired by MSC and FSC, the 

Fisheries Stewardship Council, which predated MSC by about ten years. It is wholly 

owned by FSC, but it is external to MSC, 

but there’s no one overlooking ASI in a 

sense, except that of course our program 

meets UN FAO echo certification 

guidelines. 

That’s something that we’re going to have 

tested independently. Part of that is to have 

the accreditation body that certifies certifiers 

outside of both them and us, certifiers and 

MSC. 

You can go to the inth degree and not only 

arms length, but leg length and toe length or 

something if you wish. 

Comment 

Steve Kennelly 

New South Wales Department of Primary 

Industries, Cronulla Fisheries Research 

Centre for Excellence 

Australia

I just wondered where the public comes into 

that process at the end. That’s the reason for 

asking. 

Response 

Jay Lugar 

Americas Marine Stewardship Council 

USA 

I think one of the mechanisms that the 

public can use to support the overall 

program is to look for our logo on packages 

and on the fresh fish counter and support 

sustainable fisheries in that sense and 

therefore, make sure that what it is they’re 

purchasing is sustainable, but if you’re 

looking at another level of certification there 

isn’t such, but we’re a self-governing 

organization that has an independent board 

of trustees that makes sure that the program 

operates efficiently and effectively. 

We also have an independent technical 

advisory board, which may be some people 

in this room or other people, scientific 

experts, both on the commercial side as well 

as on the scientific side, fisheries, biologists 

and stock assessment biologists to set up the 

technical aspects of our program. 

We go through a rigorous program of 

standard development and standard 

maintenance. 

Comment/ Question 

Lisa Borges 

European Commission 

Belgium 

I would like to make one comment from a 

scientist’s perspective and one comment 

from a manger’s perspective. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 203
 

 From a scientist’s perspective, I published a 

paper last year with my colleagues from the 

Dutch Fisheries Institute where I estimated 

the percentage of discards, including 

slippage. The pelagic fishery trawler I think 

was 300,000 tons of landings and we 

estimated to be ten percent discards of 

which those discards I think was only 20 

percent was caused by slippage. 

From a manager’s perspective, when we 

consider the high grading ban on law in the 

European community we did include 

slippage because I wrote that law and 

although I do not think there is a problem in 

this fishery, slippage was included. 

Question/ Comment 

John Gauvin 

Best Use Cooperative 

USA 

I’m mostly involved with cooperative 

research and building alliances between 

industry and scientists and sometimes 

advocacy groups when it can happen. 

This is a question for Miss Griffin. I 

listened with attention to your presentation 

and I particularly found interesting the circle 

of life. That somebody alleges something’s 

going on in fishing and then we find money, 

go get data, do an analysis, etc. 

I’ve been involved with this circular motion 

quite a bit over the years with different 

issues and I guess I’m wondering how can 

we do this better? Is there a way that 

industry can work better with NGOs to more 

directly address this and address it in ways 

that would be both more efficient and maybe 

more cost effective? 

Response 

Elizabeth Griffin 

Oceana 

USA

That’s a great question. We have been very 

“emergency oriented” in fisheries in the 

past. There’s a tendency to wait until 

there’s a big problem and then try to solve it. 

You end up under the gun under a lot of 

pressure to come to a solution that might not 

be that good of a solution. 

Whereas if we had consistently good levels 

of observer coverage across all fisheries it 

would give us a chance to be more proactive 

and take care of some of these issues before 

they become major problems. 

So I think the first step really is getting a 

decent amount of observer coverage across 

all fisheries. I think that’s a common goal 

that can benefit fishing industry, 

management and NGOs. 

Comment 

John Gauvin 

Best Use Cooperative 

USA

That’s the first step. Then how do we work 

better together; that part of it. 

Response 

Elizabeth Griffin 

Oceana 

USA

Well I think meetings like this are a great 

start. Giving people a chance to get to know 

each other and start the dialogue. I 

definitely would be interested in catching up 

with you after this to start talking about 

where our common interests lie. I do 

apologize for leaving the fishing industry 

out of my lobbying efforts, as Vicki pointed 

out. We do occasionally go in with 

fishermen and ask for money for various 

fisheries.

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 204
Panel Session 10: 

How can observer capacity be developed and/or expanded? 

Moderator: Andrew France, New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand 

Speakers 

Teresa Turk – USA 

Capacity building in West Africa. 

Azure D. Westwood –USA 

Utilizing observers to collect social data about fishermen’s well-being. 

Mike Orcutt – Canada 

Fisheries observer program staffing strategies 

Ryan Shama – USA 

Should I stay or should I go? Observer retention and attrition in the WCGOP 

Brian Belay – USA 

Retention of observers in a global market 

Introduction to the session 

• Building observer capacity and retaining experienced observers 

• Risks of increasing coverage levels too quickly 

• Flexible employment arrangements 

• Breadth of observer expertise/experience 

Observers from around the world record a wide range of information and collect a vast amount 

of data. The information and data collected is often essential to better management and 

enforcement of the world’s fisheries. There is an increasing need worldwide for more 

information and data to be collected to assist in the management of fisheries, and observers are 

often seen as the means to collect the required data and information. 

As observer programs are tasked with increasing their capacity levels to meet higher levels of 

coverage, there are risks associated with attempting to do this too quickly. An observer 

program’s greatest asset is in having high quality observers, and being able to retain high 

quality observers is a key factor in the success of an observer program. 

In this session we learn how established people are able to use their experience and expertise to 

assist developing observer programs, and how important and beneficial retention of experienced 

observers is. We hear about a way to measure and manage happiness and hear some ways that 

established observer programs have tackled the issue of improving their retention of observers.

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 205
Capacity building in West Africa 

Teresa A. Turk 

 NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, USA 

Introduction

The passage of the Magnuson Stevens Reauthorization Act in 2006 requires the United States to 

assist other nations in eliminating illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and to 

reduce protected species interactions. US assistance can be in the form of technology transfer and 

training or other areas of support. One such key topic to reduce and eliminate IUU is the 

collection of fishery catch and bycatch information and the development of monitoring, control 

and surveillance information. 

Robust and reliable observer programs are critical 

to solving IUU, reducing bycatch and providing 

sound and accurate catch statistics to domestic and 

international stock assessment scientists and 

managers. Observer programs can record a wide 

range of information at sea that is essential to 

better management and enforcement of the world's 

fisheries. 

Methods

To further NOAA Fisheries Service efforts in 

Africa, we have been collaborating with the U.S. 

Navy’s African Partnership Station (APS) to 

improve maritime safety, security, and resource 

stewardship. In early April 2008, NOAA Fisheries 

coordinated a 10 day observer training workshop 

on board APS vessel, HSV2 Swift, in Tema, 

Ghana. 

Four scientists from NOAA and University of 

Alaska SeaGrant worked with the Ghanaian 

Ministry of Fisheries to offer a joint training 

program for 35 fishery observers. The program 

trained observers to improve the ways they collect 

data for scientific research and monitoring of fish stocks and bycatch within domestic and 

international fisheries. NOAA Fisheries also provided Ghana with safety and scientific equipment 

for use by observers while performing their duties. In February 2009, NOAA Fisheries in 

coordination with the Direction des Pêches Maritimes-Senegal and through the APS vessel, USS 

Nashville, provided a second observer training to 40 Senegalese observers and several interested 

NGO’s and university students. During both training session, a fishery scientist from a different 

West African country attended. The intent was to “cross pollinate” the training concepts to other 

countries in the region and initiate a regional observer network. 

 Teresa Turk 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 206
Results and Discussion

NOAA Fisheries Service is scheduled to continue to provide observer training in Senegal in 

November or December 2009. Other countries requesting training are Sierra Leone, Sao Tome 

and Principe, and Cape Verde. Together with our West African colleagues we are developing a 

West African observer sampling manual that will be used for the training in Cameroon. If these 

activities are successful, future assistance will continue that may result in a regional West African 

database. 

Utilizing observers to collect social data about 

fishermen's well-being 

Azure Westwood 

 Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute, USA 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 

management measures shall “take into 

account the importance of fishery resources 

to fishing communities by utilizing 

economic and social data” (MSFCMA 2007, 

Sec.301.104-297 (8)). While social science 

data of various forms has been collected by 

observers and considered in fisheries 

management decisions in the Northeast 

USA, there have been no directed efforts to 

measure and understand a crucial social 

variable: subjective well-being. While often 

described as difficult to measure, well-being is an important variable with links to many aspects 

of life and includes satisfaction with one’s job, health, opportunities, and access to necessary 

resources. Using past subjective well-being measures and models from across multiple 

disciplines, a survey-based method for collecting information about fishermen’s well-being has 

been developed and tested in three prominent New England ports (New Bedford, MA; Point 

Judith, RI; and Chatham, MA). Observers are uniquely positioned within the fisheries paradigm 

to collect social data that can help managers, social scientists, and anthropologists to better 

understand fishermen and fishing community dynamics. The well-being survey can be 

incorporated into the observer data collection protocols at sea without compromising 

confidentiality priorities. On a broader scale, well-being measures collected by observers should 

be considered in policy-making as it lends insight into how management decisions affect 

fishermen’s way of life, behaviors, attitudes, and their communities. This also helps fulfill the 

requirements under the Magnuson-Steven’s Act to take into account social data variables. 

Exploring appropriate ways for observers to integrate social data collection like well-being should 

be a high priority for U.S. observer programs. 

Azure Westwood 

Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute, USA 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 207
Fisheries observer program staffing strategies 

Mike Orcutt 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., Canada 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., a private marine consulting company, has over 20 years of 

experience in the delivery of At Sea Observer Programs for a diverse array of fisheries and 

clients. Archipelago currently employs 40 to 60 at sea observers throughout the year in order to 

meet the at sea monitoring requirements of British Columbia's groundfish fishery and its dynamic 

fishing activity patterns. The experience of Archipelago's observer staff ranges from recent 

recruits to employees with over 10 years of experience in the profession. Archipelago employs a 

number of strategies to develop and sustain observer staff levels that meet the needs of its client 

fisheries and the development needs of its observer staff. These strategies include observer 

recruitment, professional development of existing staff and promotion of observer staff into new 

work areas either permanently or on a temporary basis. Archipelago uses a number of planning 

models that consider historic fishing activity patterns, staff availability and retention rates in to 

plan for recruitment in a proactive manner. This allows for the careful development of new 

observer staff without compromising the availability of work for existing staff. It also allows 

program staff to scale observer staff size to meet changes in fishery activity levels and to provide 

new work opportunities and professional development opportunities to observer staff. 

Should I stay or should I go? Retention in the Westcoast 

Groundfish Observer Program WCGOP 

*Ryan Shama and James Benante 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 

West Coast Groundfish Observer Program 

 USA 

Since so much of the success of any observer program is dependent on the quality of its 

observers; and, since experience can play a major role in dealing appropriately with the multitude 

of sampling situations and issues that arise, it should follow that retention of quality, experienced 

observers leads to better data collection. 

 

Figure 1: WCGOP Percent Retention by Year 

In addition to improved data quality, there are 

many other benefits to increasing observer 

retention, such as reduced training effort, time 

saved during the debriefing process, 

familiarity with the West Coast fleet, and the 

potential for recruitment of experienced 

individuals for lead observer and staff 

positions. In the WCGOP, we employ both 

seasonal and year round observers along the 

coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California 

and these observers are debriefed, face to face, 

every two months. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 208
In order to examine how retention affects the quality of sampling in the WCGOP, we have taken 

a look at observer evaluations over a four year period (from 2005-2008). Bi-monthly evaluation 

notes were used to quantify the number of “Problems” per debriefing period, and these 

“Problems” were used as a proxy of performance. However, keep in mind that these “Problems” 

could be anything from issues with sampling methodology, to issues with documentation or 

calculations. So, this data does not take into account the severity of the individual issues. 

Furthermore, within this 4 year span, we only used the eight month period when both year-round 

and seasonal observers were employed, as the workloads and fisheries observed were essentially 

the same for both groups during this time. By tracking the occurrence of “Problems” during these 

periods, we can measure the quality of data collection in relation to experience (Figs. 2 & 3).

In order to maintain an experienced o

core, the WCGOP has taken several ste

increase retention of both year-round and 

seasonal observers. These include: a 

competitive salary, the potential for yearround employment and other advancem

health insurance, optional retirement funds

(401k), bonuses for months with high 

activity, an Annual meeting and Annual 

Safety Briefing which serve as forums for 

the discussion of issues important to

WCGOP observers, and a dedication to 

improvement and effectiveness of tr

bserver 

ps to 

ents, 

the 

ainings. 

tegrating observers into the fishing communities was a goal of the WCGOP and led to the 

his allows the program to offer observers three 

ad 

ommunication and a sense of ownership are 

the 

 to 

program is the annual Observer Survey. Thi

here are a number of both positive and negative responses which are consistently seen when 

’ 

Figure 2: Experience vs. Problems by Group 

In

creation of year-round positions. In an attempt to create job advancement opportunities and 

support for observers, the WCGOP also created lead observer positions in each port group. 

T

tiers of employment (seasonal, year-round, and le

observer positions). Furthermore, the WCGOP has 

filled nearly all debriefing openings with prior 

WCGOP observers. 

C

considered essential for retaining observers in 

WCGOP. Through staff surveys and open group 

discussions, WCGOP observers are given the 

opportunity to provide input; therefore, helping

shape the future of the program. One of the tools 

used to gauge our observers’ satisfaction with the 

s anonymous survey is handed out yearly to all 

observers and covers a broad range of topics, providing staff with a great deal of useful 

information that can be used to improve staff/observer relations. 

Figure 3: Experience vs. Problems by 

individual 

T

looking at the Observer Survey over the past several years, each of which could be a factor 

affecting both retention and attrition. Some of the overriding themes over the past few years

surveys are: 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 209
o Positives: Staff and Contractor communication, support, and experience; quality of the training 

l workload between observers/port groups; inability to 

urvey results are discussed at the 

o 

ff 

s 

up, 

d 

 major portion of the Annual Briefing is 

e 

WCGOP strives to give every observer the tools and sk

s a result of these efforts, we have seen an increase in overall retention (Fig. 4), as shown 

 closing, regardless of the steps taken to increase retention, there are other obvious and perhaps 

tant 

re 

and debriefing process; quality and availability of WCGOP sampling gear; and the program’s 

focus on safety awareness and training. 

o Negatives: Short notice for trips; unequa

travel far from home port due to on-call status (“cell phone leash”); dissatisfaction with the 

evaluation process; and a poor understanding of how the data collected is being used. 

S

WCGOP Annual Meeting, one of tw

yearly meetings which include both sta

and year-round observers. These meeting

provide opportunities for WCGOP 

observers to address issues, as a gro

directly with program staff. In addition,

observers are able to interact with their 

peers in a professional setting, as oppose

to social settings. 

A

dedicated to safety awareness and this has 

been met with an overwhelmingly positive 

response from our observers. Through 

lectures, hands-on activities, and drills th

ills necessary to keep them safe, while 

performing their duties both on land and at sea. 

Figure 4: Year-Round Observer Experience 

Accumulation over the Years 

A

earlier, and this has resulted in a steady increase in the level of experience of our year-round

observers. 

In

unavoidable factors, such as injury, burn-out, and performance issues, which will always 

contribute to attrition. So, while inexperienced observers are, and will always be an impor

part of the WCGOP, it appears that our experienced, year-round observers perform better and a

more easily retained. 

Retention of observers in a global market 

 MRAG Americas, USA 

 the current age of limited resources and expanding demand for fishery products, there is an 

 is 

rate 

ich 

Bryan Belay 

In

increasing need for fisheries monitoring and observer programs. Retention of quality observers

a key factor in achieving the goals of any observer program. All observer programs rely on 

quality data and effective monitoring. An experienced team of observers provides more accu

observations, can increase the confidence in the data, and minimizes the use of staff time and 

logistical costs. There is a diverse array of fisheries observer programs in the world today, wh

generally fall into four types: 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 210
1) Temporary programs require observers for specialized 

tasks on a one-time or pilot basis. 

2) Seasonal programs that reoccur at particular times 

during the year and require observers for defined 

periods. 

3) Full Time programs that occur year around and 

require observers continuously. 

4) Complex programs that cover multiple fisheries or 

regions with fluctuating but full time demands. 

MRAG Americas will present guidelines for retention of 

observers in the four program types referenced above 

using examples from our experience working in a variety 

of fishery observer programs around the globe. MRAG 

has experience in Temporary programs such as the 

Alaska Marine Mammal and New South Wales Ocean 

Haul Observer Programs. MRAG places observer in 

Seasonal programs such as the Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game Shellfish Observer Program and seismic 

operation in the Arctic Ocean. MRAG has experience 

with Full Time programs in Hawaii Longline fisheries and the Tuna Transhipment programs. 

MRAG’s experiences in the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program will provide insight into 

the issues facing Complex programs. 

Bryan Belay 

MRAG Americas, USA 

Retention of observers starts with identifying and recruiting quality observers. There are traits 

most programs are looking for in a fisheries observer; and identifying and prioritizing these traits 

when recruiting observers increases the retention of observers. Some observers will not cope 

with the mental and physical demands of the potentially hostile environment we send them to, 

and long-term observers are a rare breed. Observer providers can boost observer retention by 

taking into account the following factors: 

1) Adequate logistical support: observers are often reliant on program staff or contractors to 

provide logistics and contact with the outside world. 

2) Timely and competitive pay: observers that are not paid promptly and fairly will often not 

return 

3) Reasonable work responsibilities: data collection requirements and forms should be efficient 

and practical 

4) Streamlined debriefing process: the submission of data should be organized and supportive, 

observers’ input on data collection should be considered. 

5) Variety of opportunities: providing diverse observer opportunities will lengthen the career of 

an observer and attract prior observers from other programs. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 211
Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Question/ Comment 

Bob Stanley 

Australian Fisheries Management Authority 

Australia 

Teresa, I’m quite impressed, this is vast, its 

huge, it can be something tremendous, but I 

didn’t get the sense from what you 

suggested how you are going to measure 

your impact on IUU. 

I’m cognizant of the fact that when we had 

IUU problems down in the Commission for 

the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources (CCAMLR) area, a concerted 

effort in the Falklands and around Prince 

Edward and Marion simply transported a 

very significant problem to the east. 

I can see the potential for a similar ripple 

effect in what you’re attempting to do. Have 

you anticipated where you might displace 

this effort to and have you got some design 

or regime as to how you might measure that 

and assess that impact that you have, and the 

net worth that you get out of this effort? 

Response 

Teresa Turk 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

Great question, we’re just getting started. I 

think we’re over there for a number of 

reasons. It’s not just IUU. It’s also to 

increase the scientific data collection and all 

sorts of other informational aspects. 

There’s quite a few things we’re doing. We 

are developing a manual and forms so that 

the observers can try and look for other 

vessels that are on the water, things like that 

and provide that kind of information. 

We’re also working with the MCS network 

and trying to raise the level of experience, 

awareness, competency to work with 

collecting that kind of information and also 

with the Navy. So it’s a combined effort. 

It’s in its infancy. It needs a whole lot of 

attention and nurturing and collaboration 

with all of our African partners to make it 

successful. 

In terms of displacing another fleet, I hope 

the Navy and our African partner’s Navy 

can work to combat that. 

Question/ Comment

Lawrence Beerkircher 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Mike, you talked about targeted recruitment. 

I’m wondering if you could highlight a 

couple of the things you look for when 

you’re targeting people that you think can 

stay in this system for a long time. 

Part of that is also I’m interested in the issue 

of the age of observers you’re recruiting and 

have you noticed a tendency for older 

observers or younger observers to be 

retained longer? 

Response 

Mike Orcutt 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

In terms of the targeted recruitment and kind 

of as I mentioned in the presentation there, 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 212
it’s not necessarily anything specific in 

terms of an observer’s suitability for the job. 

For me some of the things that I’m looking 

for in people: field experience in remote 

areas is one of the things that I particularly 

look for, whether it’s been in fisheries really 

to me is irrelevant. If they’ve lived and 

worked in remote living conditions, whether 

it be in the forestry industry, mining 

industry, those sorts of things. I’ve found 

from my experience that that type of 

experience lends itself very well. 

Any type of work in a camp environment 

where they’ve collected data in the field 

seems to work quite well for the most part. 

In terms of the education I think that perhaps 

our program might be a little bit different 

than others in that we don’t require people to 

necessarily have a bachelor’s degree. 

We do look for people with some form of 

post-secondary education, but it’s not 

essential. For me in my program it’s more 

important that first of all, they have the 

skills because I can train them. Sometimes 

you have to work a little bit harder with 

people, but the level of education is not all 

that important, at least from my perspective 

provided they have some basic skills, which 

I actually test for during the interview 

process. 

But it’s their actual suitability; their ability 

to get along with resource based workers; if 

they’ve worked in any type of resource 

industry. That seems to work very well, in 

terms of the age we have everything. I think 

our youngest observer is maybe 20-21 and 

all the way up to potentially our oldest 

observer who’s probably sitting here right 

now. 

So there is a little bit of everything. Right 

now, previously the last couple of years has 

been a very hot job market in Canada. So 

recruitment has been difficult because 

there’s been a lot of good, well paying jobs 

available to people. Right now things have 

turned around like they have everywhere 

and things have slowed down. So I’m 

seeing all kinds of people interested in doing 

observer work. 

Question/ Comment 

Lawrence Beerkircher 

NOAA Fisheries Service

So you’ve noticed no difference in retention 

between a younger recruit and an older 

recruit? 

Response 

Mike Orcutt 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

That’s a good question, too. Not that I can 

really put a finger on. I’d have to go back 

and look at some of the numbers. Not off 

hand I can’t say that I have really. 

Question/Comment 

Reuben Beazley 

Observer St. John’s 

Canada 

Do any of your programs have any 

additional duties required of experienced 

observers that would not be expected of 

trainees or is the data set limited for all 

observers to what’s lowest common 

denominator, i.e., what a trainee can handle. 

If that is the case do you have any 

suggestions to maximize the use of your 

experienced people? 

Response 

Ryan Shama 

West Coast Groundfish Observer Program 

USA 

Well I mentioned that we have some year 

round observers and lead observers. The 

lead observers have some additional duties 

involving contacting the fleet and such, but 

not necessarily in data collection. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 213
I think occasionally there’s maybe a special 

project which we’ll assign to more 

experienced observers, but generally the 

data collection is the same for everyone. 

Response 

Brian Belay 

MRAG Americas 

USA 

We have several programs that require only 

experienced observers in the IATTC 

transshipment program. There is a 60-day 

requirement for tuna experience, fishery 

experience in a tuna fishery. In the marine 

mammal program it’s only prior observers. 

It’s not really a defined period at this point, 

but typically 90 days is what we’ve been 

looking for as far as experience in that 

program. 

The shellfish, groundfish programs of course 

do not have a prior experience level, but we 

really strive to find observers that have been 

working in other programs when we hire. In 

the last several training classes that I’ve put 

together have only been prior observers 

from other fisheries that have been getting 

involved. 

We do see a lot more productivity from 

those prior observers. If you’ve never been 

on a boat it’s very difficult, you’re learning 

the sampling techniques and learning how to 

live on a boat at the same time so something 

is going to suffer. 

Response/ Comment 

Andrew France 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand

When we take on our observers we give 

them a three and a half week training course. 

We only really train them in trawling. We 

teach them about other types of fishing, but 

we don’t teach them the detail on how to fill 

out the work or do the work on other types 

of fishery methods. 

So until they get experience they don’t do 

those fisheries. Once they become 

experienced we’ll move them into what we 

call long line and purse seine and other types 

of fisheries. 

The other thing we do with them following 

our training course with our new observers, 

there’s a requirement that we place in there 

that they will have to go to sea with an 

experienced observer for at least two trips. 

We pay the experienced observer a training 

allowance per day while they’re doing that 

activity. 

Also, we have a couple of extra specialized 

fisheries, like in the Commission for the 

Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources (CCAMLR) area. We won’t send 

anyone down to the CCAMLR fishery 

which is quite a bit more complicated, until 

they’ve got quite a lot of experience under 

their belt. 

Question/ Comment 

Kelly Schmidt 

A.I.S., Inc. 

USA 

My question is to Miss Westwood. Did you 

find differences in well being between the 

captain and the crew or look at the data by 

fishery? 

Response 

Azure Westwood 

Massachusetts Institute of Fisheries Science 

USA 

I actually did. There was a difference 

between captains and crews. Captains 

generally had a higher level of well being, 

but I should preface that with the fact that 

the sample that I worked with was 72 people 

after having to weed out some of the 

surveys. That’s a pretty small sample size, 

which is why I was hoping with an observer 

program well being sample you could 

certainly get a lot more. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 214
I interviewed on a random sample basis, so 

whoever I happened to meet on the docks. I 

interviewed scallopers, trawlers, hook and 

line, gill net. I didn’t do a lot of analyses. I 

found that the most majority of my sample 

was actually trawlers. So, from that I didn’t 

want to go into a lot of detail comparing 

because my sample numbers were so 

dispread. They were quite different. I had a 

handful of hook and line fisherman, but that 

would be a very interesting question. 

On the age question I was thinking a lot of 

the well being literature actually shows that 

well being levels off after around 

(depending on culture and a lot of other 

things, but) 40-50 years of age. I wonder if 

that would be an interesting thing to explore 

on the observer side of well being and see if 

that affected retention. 

Comment 

Charlie Pitts 

A.I.S., Inc 

USA 

Very good presentations, have you ever 

asked observers, “how can we keep you?” I 

can tell you right now if you pay them 

they’ll stay. 

As far as being an observer do you realize 

how many sheets we bring on board and to 

bring one more, I don’t know what I would 

do. We just got rid of a sheet, it was an 

economical sheet. 

Response 

Azure Westwood 

Massachusetts Institute of Marine Fisheries 

USA 

That’s a good point. I think that maybe one 

aspect that I should have talked about in a 

little more depth is social information. 

There’s a dearth of social information out 

there and I think my point that I was trying 

to address was that I think observers already 

collect a lot of this information implicitly 

and to just formalize it in a way, even if it 

wasn’t a direct one-on-one interview type 

situation where you can even through at the 

end of the trip quickly get a bit of 

information or summarize some things. 

Comment 

Charlie Pitts 

A.I.S., Inc. 

USA 

Could you make it a mail in form? 

Response 

Azure Westwood 

Massachusetts Institute of Marine Fisheries 

USA

You could do that, too, but there’s some 

research out there that indicates mail-in 

versus one-on-one personal interviews 

responses even from the exact same person 

are different because there’s a different 

avenue in which you’re trying to connect 

with that person. But sure, there could 

certainly be some easier ways to lighten 

your load, good point. 

Comment 

Cyril Forward 

Teamsters Union/ Seawatch 

Canada 

I agree with Charlie what he just said there. 

If you let the observers make a decent 

living, get their days, they will stay. There is 

no use to pay an observer $1,000.00 a day if 

you’re only going to give him 9 days a year. 

He’s not going to stay. Give him X number 

of dollars, not X plus 25. X number of 

dollars. Let him make a decent living and 

he’ll stay.

Question/ Comment 

Keith Davis 

Observer/APO Board Member 

USA 

I also want to compliment the entire panel. I 

think you guys are all doing great work 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 215
I guess I wanted to follow-up on what Bob 

Stanley had brought up with you Teresa. Are 

you going to produce some sort of report on 

how you’re going about these outreach 

efforts in Africa and emerging observer 

programs and set up some sort of guideline 

of how you’re doing that and provide a 

resource so that other agencies and 

organizations can look to that as some sort 

of guiding light for helping out fellow 

emerging observer programs and if you do 

that sort of thing can we link to it on the 

APO site? 

I guess as far as assessing I would like to see 

that as well in the future, and the progress 

that these programs are making due to your 

efforts. 

Response 

Teresa Turk 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I think we’re so early on that assessment is 

really hard to figure out performance 

indicators, but it’s something on our horizon 

that we’re thinking about because, “how do 

you really measure effectiveness?” 

There are a lot of variables. In developed 

countries we have a lot of safeguards, with 

the Coast Guard a lot of regulations, a lot of 

enforcement activity that support all of our 

efforts. In developing countries that’s kind 

of a challenge at times. 

You can do the best training in the world, 

but if you don’t have enough funding to 

send people out to sea or you don’t have 

enough enforcement to really support all the 

efforts that you’re doing, then you’re not 

going to be very effective. 

So, we’re going to try and look at some 

holistic approaches and work together with 

our African colleagues to figure out some of 

those solutions. 

In terms of a report, we have a report to 

Congress that we mention some of our 

activities every year, but I think once we get 

a little bit more experience under our belt 

and have made a lot of mistakes and maybe 

have had a few successes, we’ll probably try 

and generate a report with some lessons 

learned and also a summary by both our 

partners and ourselves and maybe some 

NGOs or FOA to make sure that we’re not 

missing anything and really trying to be 

successful. 

Sure, I don’t think there’s any problem with 

the link to the APO web site. It’s early and 

I hope it’s going to get better and better 

because we’re going to all work together 

and our partners in Africa are going to drive 

all this. We’re just there to help and support 

and fill in any gaps where needed or where 

requested. 

Question/ Comment 

Jann Martinsohn 

European Commission 

Italy 

My question is directed towards Teresa. I’m 

very impressed by this program which is 

certainly urgently needed. Talking to 

colleagues from the FAO coming from west 

African countries, they told me that there is 

certainly also needs to build an 

infrastructure, be it laboratories, be it the 

capacity to host and manage data, which is 

actually quiet important also to give to these 

countries a certain degree of independence. 

Now, I acknowledge that your program is 

just starting, but are there any plans to build 

this kind of infrastructure and will there be 

funding available for this or is this still 

completely open? 

Response 

Teresa Turk 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

I think once we get some kind of agreement 

if that’s the way we want to go, which I 

think in spirit and concept we’re in 

agreement on that. Then after a manual is 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 216
agreed to or blessed, then we can start 

working to build a database. 

So we have had discussions like that, I think 

that if we have agreement, we continue to 

carry on in partnership with everybody and 

also continue perhaps to work with the Navy 

if their assistance is required and everything 

keeps going well, then I think funding will 

follow. 

I think we build upon success and funding is 

always hard to get, but I think that we’ll 

have support for that. 

Question/ Comment 

Nathan Lagerway 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I wondered if any of the panel members on 

the left would comment on the effect of 

experience on compliance monitoring and 

conflict resolution on board the vessels. 

Response 

Mike Orcutt 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada

Really good question. In terms of 

compliance monitoring, I’m not sure 

whether I’ve noticed any difference between 

experience and new observers. It’s really an 

individual thing that has, in my mind, not a 

lot to do with experience. 

Response/Comment 

Ryan Shama 

West Coast Ground Fish Program 

USA

I think getting to know the fleet in the West 

Coast Program, living in the communities, 

and the boats you begin to recognize issues 

faster than you might if you were just new to 

the program. 

Response 

Mike Orcutt 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada

One other thing I might note, too, with the 

experienced observers sometimes we do see 

a decrease in the level of compliance issues 

that they document. The reason for that 

primarily is their ability to change the 

behavior of the boat such that there is no 

compliance issue because they’re able to 

actually get the vessels to change or alter 

their procedures so that there is no longer a 

compliance issue. They’ve actually adapted 

their methods, whereas newer people are 

often not as comfortable approaching the 

vessel when they do run into an issue 

discussing it, asking or requesting that they 

change the way they do things so that there 

is no longer any compliance issues. 

Response 

Brian Belay 

MRAG Americas 

USA

Yes, we definitely see a correlation with 

experience and compliance issues. We had 

an issue this year, it was a case of 

harassment and we put a much more 

experienced observer on board and he was 

able to deal with the situation and got 

through the trip. It wasn’t his most favorite 

vessel that he was ever on, but he was able 

to deal with the situation in a much more 

professional manner. 

I agree that experienced observers tend to 

recognize when problems are arising and 

can go to that crew member or the captain 

and say “hey, captain, your guy is gaffing 

halibut”. If this continues to happen it’s 

going to be a real problem, where an 

inexperienced observer may just let that go 

on and continue to be a problem and not say 

anything to the captain. 

One of the things we do in our interview 

process is I set the observer up with a 

conflict situation and ask, “how would you 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 217
resolve it”. You learn real quick that there 

are certain people that you can’t put out 

there. Other people will handle those 

situations much better. 

Question/ Comment 

Georg Hinteregger 

Observer 

USA

When I started as an observer in 1983 I was 

hired by the government. I started as a GS5. After time spent at sea and doing the job 

adequately I became a GS-7. Sometime 

then after became a GS-9. I wonder if any 

of these programs recognize the value of 

experience by higher pay for longevity. 

Response 

Bryan Belay 

MRAG Americas 

USA

Yes, we have an extensive pay scale that 

starts out with 60-90 days in the early steps. 

Then once you get up over 500 sea days the 

steps get a little larger, but we have pay 

scales all the way up to over 1,000 sea days. 

I have many observers that are in that top 

pay scale. 

Yes, we value those prior observers. 

There’s no way to replace those sea days 

experience. We definitely reward that sea 

time. 

Comment 

Georg Hinteregger 

Observer 

USA 

Is experience transferrable from one 

program to another? 

Response 

Bryan Belay 

MRAG Americas 

USA

Yes, with MRAG, we recognize sea days 

from other observer programs, even if it’s 

with another contractor we will recognize 

those sea days. In special situations, if 

somebody is coming in, say for example 

from the southeast, from marine mammal 

programs etc, we’ll credit those days even if 

we haven’t been involved in those programs. 

This is just because we want that experience 

within our core. 

Response 

Mike Orcutt 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada

Yes, we use a similar system where 

observers advance through four different 

pay levels based on the number of sea days 

that they accumulate. So it’s definitely 

experience based pay. 

We also do a number of recognition or 

rewards that we provide to observers for 

reaching certain milestones. A thousand sea 

days, things like that where it isn’t 

necessarily a step in pay, but it’s a gift if you 

like or a bonus that we provide to them. 

Response 

Bryan Belay 

MRAG Americas 

USA 

I was going to add that in our program it’s 

based on experience by year in the program. 

So I’m not sure exactly on when it caps off, 

but around three years. There’s still an 

annual raise after that, but it’s based on 

living costs. 

Comment 

Georg Hinteregger 

Observer 

USA 

Could I just quickly ask what the top rate is 

or is that confidential? 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 218
Response 

Bryan Belay 

MRAG Americas 

USA

I’m not sure off hand. I think it’s around 

60K but I’m not exactly certain. 

Question/ Comment 

Matthew Grinnell 

Simon Fraser University 

Canada 

There’s a poster downstairs and a talk today 

looking at the number of errors with regard 

to experience. I realized that those are sort 

of probably transcription errors or data form 

errors. I’m wondering if there’s a difference 

that you’ve noticed in the ability to have 

more accurate estimates with observer 

experience. 

The reason why I’m interested is as 

someone who uses observer data the analyst 

might not necessarily know where that 

data’s coming from, someone who’s newer 

versus more experienced. 

Response 

Mike Orcutt 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

Well it’s definitely been my experience for 

the most part that experienced observers are 

definitely more accurate with their 

estimates. That’s not always the case. I 

often see new observers going out on their 

first few trips that do a remarkable job, 

unbelievable actually for their first few trips, 

but overall I’d say that definitely observers 

with more experience certainly have the 

ability to provide more accurate estimates. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 219
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 220
Panel Session 11: 

What are the monitoring issues with right-based managed 

fisheries? 

Moderator: Teresa Turk, National Marine Fisheries Service, USA 

Speakers 

Melissa Sanderson –USA 

Robust and accurate monitoring is the key to successful catch share management. 

Gordon Gislason – Canada 

No data, no fishery- the crucial role of catch monitoring in providing access to fish resources. 

Janell Majewski –USA 

Observers’ role in monitoring multi-species individual quota ( IQ) programs. 

Craig Faunce – USA 

How new quota systems aimed at stopping overfishing impact observer programs. 

Gib Brogan – USA 

Cap and control-a comprehensive approach to managing fisheries mortality. 

Graeme Parkes – UK 

Rights based management of European Fisheries. 

Alicia Billings – USA 

Using fishery observer data in community-based fisheries management. 

Introduction to the session 

Rights Based Management(RBM) is a relatively new idea and is gaining traction as a way to 

change the standard method of fisheries management that typically restricts harvest opportunities, 

processing capacity, and gear types. This session features speakers from the USA, Canada and the 

United Kingdom. It focuses on monitoring methods, observer relations and issues specific to 

rights-based managed fisheries. There are several rights-based management fisheries operating 

throughout the world, but are quite diverse with respect to their requirements, structure and 

implementation. The speakers discussed many of these right based management programs, and 

will explore new developments and the complexity of challenges and issues specific to rights 

based management. The session features talks that address the observer collected data, the crucial 

role of observers in these management setups, data accessibility, and monitoring methods. The 

session aims to discuss developments of rights-based management programs across several world 

programs. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 221
Robust & accurate monitoring is the key to successful catch 

share management 

Melissa Sanderson 

 Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association, USA 

Limiting annual fishing mortality through hard TACs and quotas is central to ending overfishing. 

The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association (CCCHFA) has been the regional 

leader in bringing community-based quota management to New England, in the form of Sectors. 

However, catch shares and quotas are ineffective at ending overfishing if the catch is not 

accurately quantified. The more uncertainty in the catch numbers, the greater chance there is that 

quotas will be exceeded and overfishing will continue. None of the past observer data, collected 

under days-at-sea and trip limits, will be able to estimate discards or catch rates under Sectors. 

High levels of fishery monitoring create the most accurate, precise, and reliable data. High levels 

of monitoring prevent necessary assumptions 

and best-guesses from over- OR underestimating at sea discards. High levels of 

coverage protect a fisherman’s investment in 

quota (none is assumed to be discarded before 

fishing even occurs) and protect the fish from 

overfishing (all fishing mortality is accounted 

for in stock assessments). CCHFA has piloted 

an at-sea sector monitoring program to provide a 

starting point in developing catch monitoring 

protocols. If the goal is minimal uncertainty, a 

sector monitoring program would initially have 

to contain 100% at-sea monitoring to create a 

baseline for future discard and catch rate 

estimates, as well 100% dockside monitoring to 

ensure accurate landings data. Coverage levels 

could be scaled back significantly after a 

baseline of accurate, precise, and reliable data is 

collected. CCCHFA recognizes the significant 

cost of high levels of monitoring and believes 

the fishing industry should not shoulder the 

entire cost. Until fish stocks are rebuilt, the 

fishing industry can’t afford to pay for a robust 

monitoring program. Ending overfishing of a 

public resource benefits everyone and there 

should be significant financial assistance from 

the government. 

Melissa Sanderson 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association, 

USA

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 222
 

No data, no fishery - The crucial role of catch monitoring in 

providing access to fish resources 

Gordon S. Gislason 

 GSGislason & Associates Ltd., Vancouver, Canada 

Introduction

Sustainability and the precautionary approach are fundamental tenets of current fisheries 

management. Meeting the sustainability test requires that reliable estimates of total removals or 

catch - landings plus discards - be available for use in stock assessment and setting TACs. 

Without third party catch monitoring, fisheries can not prove that they are sustainable and run the 

risk of having access to fish resources reduced or eliminated. Simply put, strong catch monitoring 

is a necessary condition to sustainable fisheries management. 

This paper outlines for Pacific Canada the evolution of fisheries management philosophy over the 

past 25 years, how catch monitoring is now an integral component of current management 

practice, and how third party monitoring has increased TACs and fishing opportunities. 

The Change in Fisheries Management Philosophy in Canada

In Canada the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has lead responsibility for 

managing ocean commercial fisheries. Over the past 25 years conservation and environmental 

issues increasingly have taken centre stage in DFO decisions as to Total Allowable Catch (TAC) 

levels for commercial fisheries. This movement has been spurred by worldwide trends such as the 

setting of sustainable fisheries criteria by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the 

growing influence of Environmental Non-Government Organizations (ENGOs). The shift also 

has been spurred by Canadian events such as the collapse of the Atlantic cod fishery in Eastern 

Canada and the problems in managing mixed stock fisheries in Pacific Canada. 

At one time, fisheries automatically occurred each year unless there was compelling evidence that 

so doing would result in significant harm. TACs were set based on mortality estimates from 

landings data alone for broad stock groupings, as well as economic and social considerations. 

And even if there were significant data deficiencies, inaccuracies or gaps the fishery was still 

allowed to operate in a “business as usual” sense. 

Today the burden of proof has shifted. The onus is on scientists to provide science advice, 

including total mortality figures with an allowance for discards, to justify having a commercial 

fishery at a particular TAC level. As well, there is a finer definition of individual stocks. 

Scientists still provide, as before, a range of potential catch scenarios or TACs to fisheries 

managers, and there still is uncertainty around the scenarios. However, under the precautionary 

approach, the chosen TAC is lower than in the past without a substantial upgrade in the quality of 

supporting data, specifically catch data on both landings and at-sea discards. This at-sea data must 

be derived from independent third party systems, as opposed to self-reporting systems, in order to 

provide reliable and credible data. 

Figure 1 displays key differences in fisheries management practices between the past and the 

present. The previous practice essentially was “No Data, No Problem” - the lack of data was not a 

sufficient reason to close or significantly curtail a fishery. The current practice is “No Data, No 

Fishery” - a fishery at a significant scale will not be allowed without a firm information base. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 223
 

BEFORE / THE PAST NOW / THE FUTURE 

Circumstances & Philosophy 

• fishery open unless closed 

• science one of many considerations 

• a business approach 

• nascent ENGOs, no MSC 

• TACs - landings only 

 - broad species groups 

Circumstances & Philosophy 

• fishery closed unless open 

• science the main consideration 

• a precautionary approach 

• strong ENGOs, MSC 

• TACs - landings plus discard mortality 

 - individual stocks 

+ + 

Catch Monitoring Practices 

• self-reporting systems - landings only covered 

• no at-sea monitoring 

• post-season reporting acceptable 

Catch Monitoring Practices 

• third party systems - landings plus discards 

• at-sea monitoring 

• in-season reporting required 

= = 

“NO DATA, NO PROBLEM” “NO DATA, NO FISHERY” 

Figure: 1 Commercial Fisheries Management

Stronger Catch Monitoring, Higher Catch

Many groundfish, herring and shellfish commercial fisheries in Pacific Canada have moved to 

Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) management over the past 20 years. A 100% Dockside 

Monitoring Program for landings conducted by independent third parties was a requirement in the 

move to ITQ management. And in the case of groundfish fisheries, where there are significant 

bycatch issues, there is 100% at-sea monitoring of discards either through observers or video 

electronic monitoring (bycatch in herring net and shellfish dive fisheries is minimal). 

It is estimated that, without the move to ITQs and attendant improved monitoring, TACs would 

be 5 to 50% lower over a variety of fisheries1 . The 100% monitoring of discards under the 2006 

Groundfish Integration Program has allowed the retention of certain bycatch, such as rockfish, 

that by regulation had to be discarded previously. And rigid third party catch monitoring provides 

transparency in fishing operations and this, in turn, instills public confidence that fisheries are 

being conducted in a sustainable manner2

. 

The evidence is clear. Third party 100% monitoring of catch - dockside landings plus discards - 

has increased TACs and fishing opportunities. 

Notes: 

1. GSGislason & Associates Ltd. 2008. Employment impacts of ITQ fisheries in Pacific Canada. Prepared 

for Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, p.71. 

2. Gislason, G. 2007. Commercial catch monitoring: gatekeeper to sustainability and public confidence in 

Pacific Canada, Presented to 5th International Observer Conference, Victoria, Canada. p.6. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 224
 

Catch Shares: The U.S. West Coast Groundfish Trawl Fisheries 

move to individual quota management and the effects on the 

observer program 

 Jannell Majewski 

 NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

The U.S. west coast groundfish trawl fleet operates out of small coastal communities in 

California, Oregon, and Washington. It is currently managed by a complex set of two-month 

cumulative landing limits, which constrain the amount of fish landed but not the amount of fish 

caught (discarding at-sea allowed when cumulative landing limit reached). Despite numerous 

management measures enacted since 2001, including a fleet buyback and the closure of the 

majority of the eastern Pacific Ocean continental shelf along the US west coast, the fishery is still 

marked by serious biological, social, and economic concerns. It is currently viewed as 

economically unsustainable due to the number of participating vessels, a regulatory approach that 

constrains efficiencies, and the status of certain groundfish stocks along with the measures in 

place to protect those stocks. Due to these concerns, in June 2009, the Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council finalized plans to implement a trawl Individual Quota (IQ) fishery, with an 

anticipated start date of January 2011. 

Approximately 170 vessels (permits), which range in size from 13 to 24 meters, will be eligible 

for IQ quota shares. A quota share is an amount, as a percentage, of a species/complex allocated 

to a permit based on historical catch. Although fleet consolidation is anticipated, it’s unclear how 

quickly and how much will occur, especially considering that the selling of IQ shares will not be 

allowed in the first two years. The trawl IQ program will include approximately 67 species, some 

of which will be managed as complexes (minor shelf rockfish) (See Figure 1). The species list 

includes 48 rockfish (Sebastes spp.) species, 7 of which are overfished. The overfished status of 

so many rockfish stocks adds greater complexity to the IQ program, as very low optimum yields 

(OY’s) will result in very small quotas to individual participants. One stock, Yelloweye rockfish, 

is expected to have an OY of less than 14mt in 2011. This has implications to both the fleet (will 

vessels have less opportunity because of the high cost to purchase Yelloweye quota) and the 

observers (ensuring accurate weights and counts of overfished species with extremely low OY’s). 

Roundfish/Other Rockfish Rockfish Flatfish

Lingcod N 42 ̊N Pacific Ocean Perch Shortspine THDS S of 

34 ̊27’N

Dover sole

Lingcod S 42 ̊N Widow rockfish Longspine THDS N of 

34 ̊27’N

English sole

Pacific cod Canary rockfish Cowcod rockfish Petrale sole

Pacific hake Chilipepper rockfish Yelloweye rockfish Arrowtooth flounder

Sablefish N of 36 ̊N Bocaccio rockfish Minor Shelf Rockfish North Starry flounder

Sablefish S of 36 ̊N Splitnose rockfish Minor Shelf Rockfish South Other Flatfish1

Longnose Skate Yellowtail rockfish Minor Slope Rockfish North

Darkblotched rockfish Minor Slope Rockfish South

Shortspine THDS N of 

34 ̊27’N

Figure 1: West Coast Groundfish Trawl IQ Species/Complex List t 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 225
 

One unique feature of the west coast trawl IQ program is a gear switching provision that will 

allow trawl vessels to use hook-and-line or pot gear to catch some or their entire IQ quota. It’s 

unclear how this provision will change the practices of the trawl fleet, although in some ports 

there is already concerted effort to move to a small vessel, hook-and-line/pot fishery with little or 

no trawl activity. In other areas, trawl vessels may decide to catch some species with non-trawl 

gear, such as sablefish, while continuing to use trawl gear to harvest flatfish and other species. 

The west coast groundfish observer program (WCGOP) has observed the west coast groundfish 

trawl fishery since 2001 and will be responsible for observer coverage in the IQ fishery. One 

significant change will be coverage rates increasing from the current 17% to 25% to 100% at-sea 

observer coverage under IQ’s. While still in the planning phase, the WCGOP has identified 

numerous areas that need to be revised with the implementation of IQ’s. These areas include: 

• Observer sampling methodology –Of particular concern will be designing a sampling 

methodology that: 

o Ensures accurate accounting for up to 67 IQ species on different gear types 

o Considers the enhanced accounting needs for the overfished species with very 

low OY’s 

o Accounts for other non-IQ species with OY’s (i.e. sharks, skates) 

o Monitors the catch of protected and/or endangered species (marine mammals, 

seabirds, salmon) 

o Estimates the impacts to unmarketable species and invertebrates 

• Training – Planning for a three to four fold increase in training classes offered. 

• Data Quality – Designing a “real-time” data quality system that’s built into an electronic 

on-deck data collection system and a follow-up data quality process that allows for the 

update of observer data weeks or months after collection. 

• Data Delivery – Ensuring a system is in place that allows for the timely turn-around of 

observer data that relates to other data sources, including landing receipts and the 

permit/quota pound monitoring system. 

How new quota systems aimed at stopping overfishing impact 

observer programs 

*Craig H. Faunce1 and Lisa M. Thompson1

National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries 

Monitoring and Analysis Division, Seattle, Washington, USA.1

Introduction

A fundamental shift in fisheries management is from developing fisheries (open access) to 

controlling harvest. Long-standing methods to control harvest include restrictions on vessel 

fishing power, gears and season. Newer economically-based methods to control catch include 

catch-share programs. Catch share programs dedicate a share of the allowable quota to an 

individual or a group of individuals. These catch-share programs include individual transferable 

quotas (ITQ), community development quotas (CDQ) and cooperative quotas (CQ). Catch-share 

programs have been prominently touted as the management solution to "end the race for fish" and 

prevent fisheries collapse1

, however their implementation has not universally achieved that 

result2

. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 226
 

Since 1990 the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (NPGOP) has been responsible for 

independent third-party reporting of observable directed and incidental mortality of groundfish, 

birds, and marine mammals in the Economic Exclusive Zone off Alaska. The NPGOP is currently 

managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service's Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Because a 

large portion of the at-sea observer program is industry funded under a "pay-as-you-go" system, 

initial coverage rates on vessels essentially derived from decisions as to what was considered a 

fair financial burden for fishery participants to bear. Consequently the current coverage system is 

complex, owing to various pressures exerted on the program since its inception, yet basic 

coverage rates are determined by combination of vessel length, gear type, target fishery, and type 

of quota management. Observers are currently trained and subsequently debriefed after 90 day 

deployments. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service's Alaska Regional Office (AKRO) manages over 600 

quotas for an industry whose ex-vessel value in 2007 was in excess of $1 billion. Components of 

the AKRO's Catch Accounting System include at-sea estimates of catch from observers and 

reports from industry. Fisheries management in Alaska deducts both retained and discarded catch 

from allocated quota. Thus there exists economic incentive to underreport discarded catch at-sea, 

and this incentive may be increased under catch-share programs3

. 

A variety of catch share programs have been initiated in Alaska, with varying consideration made 

towards observer coverage requirements. In 1995 Sablefish and Halibut longline fisheries began 

to be managed under IFQ- the first program of its kind in the U.S. No changes in observer 

coverage requirements were enacted under the new program. During the period of 1995-1999, 

CDQ program allocations were increased through various fishery plan amendments and in 1999 a 

limited licensing program was initiated. The American Fisheries Act of 1998 mandated flow 

scales, motion-compensated platform scales, certified observer stations and increased observer 

coverage within newly created pollock fishery cooperatives by the 2000 fishing season. 

The timeline of the aforementioned catch share programs are used to make comparisons between 

the realized workload of observer programs before and after their implementation. The period 

from 1995-1999 is considered as the IFQ period, and the period from 2001-2005 is considered the 

CQ period. Differences in the observer program workload between periods were used to predict 

the workload associated with a new CQ program initiated in 2008. 

Methods

Observer workload was determined by the total number of at-sea days realized each year and the 

total number of debriefings realized by NPGOP each month each year. Data were examined 

between periods through the use of a two-sample t-test. Realized workload before and after 

enactment of the CQ in 2000 was compared to data realized in 2008 after the establishment of a 

new CQ to examine stability in the results. 

Results and Discussion

 

The period from 1995-1999 was marked by a reduction in the total number of sea-days that 

mimicked the reduction in the number of vessels fishing sablefish IFQ. During the IFQ period 

total sea-days were reduced by ~ 11% to around 27,400. From 1999 to 2000, with the onset of 

new coverage requirements associated with CQ, total sea-days increased to pre-1995 levels by the 

largest inter-year increase of the period (~10%). During the CQ period, total observer coverage 

increased only modestly (~1%). Differences in total sea-days between periods were not 

significant. Total debriefings declined during 1995-1997 but increased during 1998-2001 after 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 227
 

which it remained stable. In contrast to total sea-days, there was a highly significant difference in 

total debriefings between the two periods (p<0.01). Although seasonal workload peaks were 

realized earlier and were of longer duration during the CQ period than during the IFQ period, the 

timing of peak debriefings between the two periods remained largely unchanged. Comparison 

between the workload realized during the CQ period and that in 2008 show that increases in 

observer coverage with CQ consistently resulted in an immediate increase in both total 

debriefings and total sea-days. When combined, these results demonstrate that NPGOP 

workloads increased in years immediately prior to initiation of new catch-share programs and 

remained high for at least one year post-implementation. The duration of peak workload is likely 

dependent on the interplay between: (1) the magnitude of newly regulated changes in observer 

coverage per vessel, and (2) the number of vessels that choose to opt-out of the fishery in 

subsequent years by trading or selling quota. 

Notes: 

 

1. Costello, C., S. D. Gaines and J. Lynham. 2008. Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? Science 

321, 1678-1681. 

2. Chu, C. 2009. Thirty years later: the global growth of ITQs and their influence on stock status in marine 

fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 10, 217-230. 

3. Branch, T. A., R. Hilborn, A. C. Haynie and eight co-authors. 2006. Fleet dynamics and fishermen 

behavior: lessons for fisheries managers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63, 1647-

1668. 

Count, cap, and control- A comprehensive approach to 

managing fisheries mortality 

*Gilbert A Brogan1, David Allison2, Courtney Sakai2, 

Dr. Michael Hirshfield2, Elizabeth Griffin2 

1

Oceana, Wayland, Massachusetts, USA, 

2

 Oceana, Washington, DC, USA 

Introduction

The success of fisheries management in the United States and around the world has suffered 

because most management programs fail to identify, quantify and manage both landings and 

discard mortality. 

Oceana has developed an analytical management tool to assess the catch (landings plus discards) 

of fisheries, establish limits on these catches and enforce these limits as a means to effectively 

limit overall mortality to biologically acceptable levels. 

Limiting mortality will increase targeted catch, limit waste and improve the probability of 

achieving management objectives, common goals for all management programs. 

Methods

The analytical process for setting mortality limits is elegantly broken into three phases which lead 

to an improved management program for each fishery: Count, Cap, and Control. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 228
 

Count- In this phase fisheries managers and their technical advisors use available data on 

landings, discards and fishing activity to conduct a matrix-based catch analysis for the fisheries 

and stocks for which they are responsible as well as the catch of “Threatened and Endangered” 

species. This analysis will provide a robust assessment of fishery/stock interactions and catch 

composition of these fisheries. 

A generic sample of this matrix: 

 Fishery 1 Fishery 2 Fishery 3 

 

 

 

 

Regional/Federally-managed Stocks 

 

 

 

 State Managed Stocks 

 

 

Federally-Managed Stocks (Highly Migratory Species, etc.) 

 

 

 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Other Species 

 Figure 1: Generic Sample Matrix 

Cap- For those fishery/stock interactions with interactions deemed to be significant, the relevant 

fishery managers will allocate available catch (as determined by stock assessments) to those 

fisheries as they see fit. 

Control- These allocations will serve as ‘hard caps’ or total allowable catch levels (TACs). The 

hard quota assigned to each fishery will serve as an absolute backstop limit on catch (landings 

plus discards) in that fishery. Management success is ensured by requiring the cumulative catch 

of all allocations to never exceed 100 percent of the biologically supportable catch. 

The Role of Fisheries Monitoring- Because of incentives to misreport or underreport catch to 

avoid exceeding a quota allocation, self-reporting of catch is an unacceptable option. Monitoring 

and enforcement of these limits will rely on a robust at-sea observer program that provides 

accurate and precise estimates of catch coupled with timely reporting of catch. 

ResultsThe Count, Cap, and Control approach has been used in a range of individual fisheries in the 

United States to address specific interactions between dissimilar fisheries. In these limited 

applications this approach has mitigated bycatch and increased opportunity to catch target 

species. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 229
 

Oceana believes that a complete catch analysis and allocation of available catch to a system of 

smaller limits is an essential element of modern management of fisheries and the interactions of 

fisheries with Threatened and Endangered Species. 

The implementation of this tool as a programmatic approach for all fisheries fully satisfies the 

2006 US Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act which requires Annual Catch Limits and 

Accountability Measures for all US fisheries by 2011. 

Rights based management of European Fisheries 

*Graeme Parkes 1, Suzannah Walmsley 1, Sean Savage1, Steve Cunningham 2, Martin 

Aranda 3, Sten Sverdrup-Jensen 4, John Cotter 5, Alyson Little 5, Graeme Macfadyen6, 

Steve Hodgson 1, Ragnar Arnason7

A broad range of rights-based management approaches exist in European fisheries, but until now 

there has been no systematic review or assessment of their characteristics and performance. To 

inform the debate on the role of rights-based management (RBM) in the implementation of a 

reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the European Commission has recently published a 

new study that explores rights-based management (RBM) and its contribution to achieving CFP 

objectives. The study, carried out by an international consortium led by MRAG Ltd, presents a 

detailed catalogue of European fisheries management and a cross-cutting analysis of the drivers 

for RBM, its implementation in a variety of national contexts, the development of national and 

international markets for rights and the impacts on participation in EU fisheries. Key issues 

discussed include the concentration of fishing rights, protection of small-scale fisheries, access of 

newcomers, access of nationals of other Member States, and potential effects on discarding 

practices. The report also explores future options for national authorities to develop stronger and 

higher quality rights in support of more effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy 

and the potential role of the Commission in supporting national and regional rights-based 

management initiatives. 

The study used a deliberately broad definition of RBM, including ‘any system of allocating 

fishing rights to fishermen, fishing vessels, enterprises, cooperatives or fishing communities’. 

Within this, the study categorised existing management approaches into catch-based quota 

systems (ITQs, IQs), effort-based quota systems, licensing systems and territorial use rights in 

fisheries (TURFs). 

The study involved extensive consultation with government officials, industry and academics to 

gather information on the RBM systems and to score them for four quality attributes: Exclusivity, 

Validity, Security and Transferability. This enabled calculation of an overall measure of the 

theoretical ‘quality’ of the fishing right. 

A key output of the study was the identification of lessons learned that could be useful for the 

development of future RBM approaches and particularly their alignment with achievement of 

CFP objectives: sustainable exploitation of stocks, balancing fishing capacity with fishing 

opportunities, and economic viability. However, there were also difficulties in analysing key 

indicators such as profitability and sustainability. For example, participants in the same EU 

fishery often operate under different national RBM systems, making it hard to tease out cause and 

effect. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 230
 

The principal driver for many RBM systems in the EU has been the requirement to implement EU 

regulations that establish TACs for a number of species, and that limit fishing capacity. The study 

showed that RBM approaches are often not sufficient in themselves to meet the objectives of the 

CFP – this requires a range of fisheries management measures at different levels, from 

Commission level down to hands-on monitoring and control – but they play an important role in a 

successful management system. 

The report concludes that although there are clear examples of success in rights-based fisheries 

management, the transfer of this success to other fisheries is not straightforward; RBM systems 

should be designed with stakeholder input for specific fisheries and implemented in an 

incremental manner. Best practice is difficult to define, especially given the enormous diversity 

of fleets and fisheries in the EU and the need to address national as well as EU-level objectives. 

Nonetheless, this study compiles detailed information on current RBM practices, highlights 

lessons learned from specific case studies and provides a solid basis for further discussion on the 

reform of fisheries management in the EU. 

Notes: 

1. MRAG Ltd. UK. 

2. IDDRA, France 

3. AZTI, Spain 

4. IFM, Denmark 

5. CEFAS, UK 

6. Poseidon, UK 

7. University of Iceland 

The Potential Use of Observer Data in Community Based 

Fisheries Management 

Alicia Billings 

 Lotus Web Design and Consulting1

, USA

Introduction

The marine environment is complex, with webs of interdependency between and among species 

that are just beginning to be examined. With every research project and new technology, this 

statement is confirmed. Along with investigating these complex relationships, traditional 

methods of defining stocks must take into account the effect that these relationships have on the 

future of sustaining both the resource and the fisheries. 

Community Based Fisheries Management (CBFM) is an alternative approach to the traditional 

“top down” management practiced in the United States. Where these traditional methods 

examine populations based on more jurisdictional boundaries than biological restrictions, CBFM 

seeks to empower local fishers to become stewards of their local fisheries resource by using a 

more ecosystem-based management (EBM) approach1

. 

The Port Orford Ocean Resource Team (POORT) is a nonprofit organization based in the small 

(1200 population), rural community of Port Orford, Oregon. Their mission is to engage local 

fishers and other members of the community to ensure the long-term sustainability of the nearby 

marine ecosystem and the social system dependent on it. Several programs, including 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 231
 

establishing a Community Stewardship Area, have energized much of the fleet to take care of the 

fish and habitat that provide their livelihood. As such, the POORT office is a hotbed of useful 

local knowledge and viewpoints on fisheries management. 

Methods

During the last 3 years, the author was employed as a West Coast Groundfish Observer in Port 

Orford and with POORT as the project director. Through both talking with the fishers and 

learning the inner workings of how fisheries are managed on the West Coast, it became apparent 

that these fishers sincerely want what is best for the resource to sustain their livelihood. It was 

also apparent that the ability to manage local stocks is hindered by the traditional management 

practices because of confidentiality restrictions and lack of confidence in small datasets. 

This is a preliminary report based solely on these experiential knowledge interviews to shed light 

on the need for further examination of the use of observer data in CBFM. The information 

regarding policies and management is the viewpoint of these fishers, right or wrong, and is used 

because it is important examine the perception alongside the reality when discussing CBFM to 

determine how best to use local knowledge in the management of our oceans. 

Results/Discussion

Marine organisms are true citizens of the world. They don't abide by state, federal, or 

international boundaries because they are bound by their own biology and ability to live and 

move in favorable habitats. Management lines on the west coast are created on maps with 

latitudinal lines bisecting habitats and creating a potential for two different regulation structures 

upon the same fishing grounds2

. 

A striking example of this is seen when looking at the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA), a 

large-scale closed area extending the length of the entire west coast, with different boundaries for 

different gear types3

. Observer data is used to determine the rates of discard for several key 

species, including the Yelloweye rockfish. Yelloweye is the most restraining species in 

management plans for the nontrawl fisheries around Port Orford. Because of its rebuilding status, 

its capture as bycatch is restricted to near nothing. 

If the data collected by observers show the bycatch rates of Yelloweye are higher than optimal, 

managers have the option to flex the RCA through east-west boundaries based on fathom curves. 

In an attempt to better serve regional differences in the both bycatch rates and habitat, several 

large blocks delimitated by arbitrary latitudinal lines are available to segment the boundary 

changes. 

For the 2009-2010 management cycle, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) looked 

at bycatch rates for the Yelloweye rockfish in the limited entry nontrawl sablefish fleet. From 

this, it was decided to move the RCA western boundary out to 120 fathoms in the management 

block that bisected a key traditional fishing ground north of Port Orford. Experiential knowledge 

from several limited entry sablefish fishers pointed to the lack of Yelloweye capture in that area. 

Because of restrictions in obtaining place-based observer records, there was no way for the fleet 

to gather bycatch rates for their grounds, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) does not have the directive to go after such small scale information. Without this 

evidence, however, the fleet could not make it's case to the PFMC. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 232
 

There are two main reasons for this lack of place-based examination and use of observer data: 

confidentiality restrictions and the lack of large datasets. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act4

 is the leading authority governing fisheries management in 

the United States. It restricts how the data is binned based on the number of observed trips and 

observed vessels in a given area to preserve fisher confidentiality and increase the size of the 

datasets. Because of this, data is binned into large areas, long time periods, or both. 

Unfortunately, small communities caught in the middle can be unduly restricted. 

With half of this vital sablefish ground lost and the loss of the salmon fishery for the second 

consecutive season, fishers in Port Orford who were unable to move into other fisheries began to 

struggle. The willingness to trust management authorities has been decreased because of this, and 

is talked about regularly over morning coffee and down at the dock. 

Ensuring confidentiality of fishing vessels is important. The observer program would not be 

tolerated by fishers if the data collected was open to the public. But the devastating 

socioeconomic effects of large-area restrictions that are not appropriate should be avoided to 

preserve both the social structure of fishing communities and their economic strength. By 

figuring out how to preserve fisher confidentiality and confidence in the observer program, as 

well as finding innovative ways to use small datasets, observer data can be a step closer to its full 

potential as the leading collection method for fishery-based information. 

Notes: 

1. Port Orford Ocean Resource Team website (http://www.oceanresourceteam.org) 

2. Pacific Fishery Management Council's Council Guide (http://www.pcouncil.org/guide/Guideintropage.html) 

3. NMFS Groundfish Closed Areas Website (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/GroundfishFishery-Management/Groundfish-Closed-Areas/) 

4. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/) 

Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Question/ Comment 

Leigh Featherston 

Ocean Conservancy, USA 

This question is for Melissa and Craig. If I 

understand what has happened here in New 

England, we now have 17 sectors that will 

design there own monitoring programs. 

Melissa talked about the importance of 

monitoring to catch account, which I can 

appreciate – we work real hard on that in the 

Gulf of Mexico. I see a lot of potential 

problems with 17 fishery monitoring 

programs delivering data to NOAA 

Fisheries Service without any 

standardization. By way of example, the 

recreational fishery monitoring programs in 

the Gulf of Mexico collect and deliver data 

very differently. Data from Texas is not 

brought in with data from the other states 

until quite late; it’s collected differently; and 

it’s really hard to add together. It has 

created a lot of headaches for us in terms of 

managing those fisheries in any kind of real 

time. So, Melissa, I was hoping you could 

speak about the importance of 

standardization. 

 Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 233
Craig, I know the Alaskan fisheries do a 

very good job of collecting data from a 

number of fisheries while providing output 

in real time. If you could offer other regions 

advice on how to set up such a program, it 

would be very helpful. Thank you for your 

talks. This was a very interesting panel. 

Response 

Melissa Sanderson 

CCCFHA, USA 

You are correct that standardization is very 

important, and each of the sectors will be 

shaping their own monitoring program. 

What I didn’t mention is that they will be 

standardized. There are minimum 

monitoring requirements set by NMFS that 

must be met. I mentioned the one’s that are 

in place right now. Even within that, the 

industry and the NMFS regional office and 

science center have had a lot of discussion 

and a lot of work has gone into the data 

protocols and what the data will look like 

and in what format it will be transferred. So 

even though a sector has the discretion to 

decide whether they will use EM or 

specifically how they will do their 

monitoring and distribute it among their 

vessels, the data that is output should all 

look the same across those sectors. 

Response 

Craig Loveridge

Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand 

 I don’t think I can describe how to set up a 

program like Alaska’s in one answer. What 

we have seen as the basic elements of such a 

program are: in season transmission of data. 

I saw innovative transmission systems 

described in this conference, such as palm 

pilots and cell phones. We use a system 

called Atlas that we deploy on vessels. Our 

boats are very large, up to 600 feet. We 

have computers through which the observer 

can enter the data, and it gets transmitted 

and decoded in our database. We have 

system staff of 10 people who manage that 

database. We also have 15 or more people 

who that debrief, and it’s been an evolving 

process. So the first thing for in-season 

management is that you have to have a 

system for getting the data out there. Once 

it’s collected there’s no way to debrief that 

data in real time, obviously. Our observers 

are deployed for up to 90 days. So that data 

is posted for in-season management every 

week. The idea of weekly, rather than daily, 

is that the variance is reduced by 

aggregation, so you don’t have so much 

bouncing around. I guess I would say that 

observer programs around the country have 

standardized ways of collecting data by 

vessel/gear type, and we’re no different 

from that. We have our manuals and 

everything, which may be downloaded online. 

This problem it is a challenge for observer 

programs. Our offices are commonly in 

crisis mode. The NMFS regional office will 

call and say this number exploded and this 

number didn’t or “What’s going on with this 

data?” Fortunately, in Alaska, we are 

protected from a lot of major data problems 

because we have so much data. We have 

full observer coverage on a lot of our 

fisheries sectors. By “full coverage” I don’t 

just mean every vessel, but every single 

haul; and not just every single haul, but also 

large sample fractions within that haul. So 

for targeted species we’re actually doing 

quite well. For a frame of reference, the 

yellow eye rockfish TAC for the west coast 

would equal one-tenth of one Pollock tow 

(for scale). 

Key elements are: In season transmission, 

rapid turnaround of observers, and ensuring 

the quality of the data through thorough 

debriefing. 

Question/ Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

Very good presentations! Janelle, you talked 

about your example of the ability for 

switching gear, and your example of the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 234
division of the 5 metric tones and the 

fisher’s can switch gear to a gear that will 

hasten the catch of a species in your 

example. I wonder what is the impact of 

that. Does that hasten the closure of the 

fishery? 

Response 

Janelle Majewski 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

That’s a good question. I’m not totally sure 

if, I don’t think it’s clear if that allocation to 

that sector is reached, if that whole sector 

will be closed or not. That’s the biggest 

concern I have with this gear switching 

provision. It’s not only yellow-eye, but cod 

also are more likely to be caught also with 

line gear, rather than trawl gear. So like I 

said, it’s not real clear what’ll happen if 

vessels go over their quotas so much that it 

exceeds their TACs. 

Question 

Susan Wigley 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

My question is for Janelle and it relates to 

the cost. As you begin your work on sector 

and 100% monitoring, who do you 

anticipate bearing the costs?, and would 

there be a transition period between 

government and industry, if the monitoring 

will be industry based for and by the 

industry? 

Response 

Janell Majewski 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

That’s a great question, and a question we 

also have. As of today, we have received no 

additional funding for the transition. That 

includes for designing and implementing the 

program. There is an expectation that we 

will receive some funds from the next 

budget cycle, but I’m going to mention a 

couple problems that I have with that. The 

earliest we would receive the funds would 

be October 2010, and the ITQ fishery is 

slated to begin in January 2011. That means 

we have two months to prepare, purchase all 

of the observer gear, and hire additional staff 

before the first observer training takes place. 

When it comes to funding of the actual 

observers on the vessels, we have not had 

any indication from NMFS whether it will 

be industry or government funded. I guess I 

would advocate very strongly that during the 

transition period, at least for the first two 

years of an individual quota managed 

fishery, it’s pretty important that we get it 

right by having federal funding that will 

allow us the flexibility we need in this kind 

of dynamic period of the fishery. But we 

have no indication that will be coming. 

Question/ Comment 

Julie Bonney 

Alaska Groundfish Data Bank, USA 

 In terms of the sectors here in the NE where 

you are talking about 100% observer 

coverage at sea over a period of time, during 

which you’d create a baseline, and then from 

that point forward you’d have reduction in 

the coverage. In my experience from 

Alaska, once you have such a high level, 

going to something at a lower level typically 

doesn’t happen. So have you had that 

dialogue to define that baseline and what 

they are going to be looking for in terms of 

what level of observer coverage you might 

have in the future? 

Response 

Melissa Sanderson

CCCHFA, USA 

 I don’t have a complete answer for you. 

We haven’t had a lot of dialogue on that. 

And I hope you didn’t misunderstand me. 

We won’t have 100% coverage, unless some 

things are changed before next May. There 

looking at implementing low observer 

coverage or applying an assumed discard 

rate to calculate discards. So what I was 

putting the argument out was that we should 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 235
be having 100% coverage, at least for a 

couple years so we can build a baseline to 

actually have data so we can know what 

those rates look like under sector 

management. But in terms of backing of 

from 100% coverage, we haven’t had those 

dialogues. 

Question/ Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

Graham, in your presentation you outlined 

so many rights based management schemes 

In your review of those rights-based 

schemes, did you assess the quality of the 

science that’s being conducted as the fishers 

are taking on the responsibility of the 

management? 

Response 

Graeme Parkes 

MRAG Ltd., United Kingdom 

That really wasn’t part of our brief. The 

project was not specifically looking at 

monitoring issues. It was more of a 

cataloguing exercise to sort of put Europe on 

the map with respect to rights-based 

management and to see what’s really going 

on across the EU and particularly how 

members states respond to limits and 

constraints put on them by the Commission 

and the EU particularly the overlapping and 

shared stocks sort of issues. We did clearly 

see that some systems are more complex 

than others. There is no one size that fits all 

sort of answer. We saw some limiting 

licensing systems which are relatively 

straight-forward with less management 

burden working perfectly well in certain 

situations. 

Question/ Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

Have any of the other panelists looked at 

rights-based management systems and seen 

any kind of deficiency or efficiency in the 

science? 

Response 

David Boyes 

Arbegar Fishing Co. Ltd., Canada 

 In British Columbia there has been a big 

difference. The science is much better. In 

fact, industry is actually paying for science. 

There is research being conducted that 

would not be conducted if not for the ITQ 

system, because they see it themselves as 

being the client and not just the government 

or the resource. So there’s a commonality 

of interests that has been brought together 

through stronger rights-based systems. So I 

would say definitely in Pacific Canada the 

science is much better, not just through the 

catch monitoring programs, but there is a 

adjunct of a whole bunch of other research 

investigations that just would not happen 

without the stronger rights and the fishing 

communities realizing that they are the 

beneficiaries of the better science. 

Question 

Lisa Borges 

European Commission, Belgium 

My question for Graeme associated with 

Dennis’s earlier questions. My sense of the 

talks here is that a lot of the ITQ programs 

will need a high curve example monitoring. 

And I wondering if when you did your 

analysis you checked how many countries 

actually have a monitoring program? More 

importantly, what was the percentage of 

sampling coverage? 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 236
Response 

Graeme Parkes 

MRAG Ltd., United Kingdom 

I’m afraid it’s the same answer. We didn’t 

really look at that specifically, we were 

more occupied in trying to categorize and 

characterize the different systems in terms of 

how they were managed, particularly the 

interplay of the different kinds of rights. As 

I mentioned before, the licensing overlaid 

with individual quotas and with effort, 

perhaps, on top of that, and the effects that 

has on the efficiency in the way in which the 

fleets operate. I think, though, that what you 

are talking about is important and if we were 

able to do that the study would have been 

more relevant to this forum. I think we did 

identify a number of follow-on projects and 

research that would be very useful, and I 

think that topic is one. We look forward to 

the request for proposals on that. 

Question/ Comment 

Bob Trumble 

MRAG Americas, USA 

We’ve heard quite a bit this morning from 

Gordon and Alicia about the benefits of 100 

percent monitoring. We know in the US 

that we’re not to get 100 percent coverage 

for a lot of our fisheries. In Alaska, Paul has 

experience with 100 percent and 200 percent 

coverage on factory trawlers. I’m curious 

whether anyone has done a study looking at 

the increasing risk as the coverage level 

goes down. When it goes to zero, 

obviously, there’s very high risk of 

inappropriate fishing and inaccurate, 

inadequate records of landings and discards. 

But how do we look at some balance where 

we cannot afford 100 percent coverage in 

some of these smaller fisheries, against the 

risk of getting inappropriate data. If anyone 

has done such a study or put out an RFP for 

such a study, I’d like to know your thoughts 

on that. 

Response 

Julie Bonney 

Alaska Groundfish Databank, USA 

It would be a difficult study to do just 

because I think those fisheries where you 

have really constrained stocks adds another 

complicating factor. You’d have to look at 

it on a fishery by fishery level. 

Response 

Craig Loveridge 

Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand 

I’d also like to comment on that. One of the 

things that in addition to observer coverage 

level to consider is how fast that data gets 

transmitted and in chunks data is being 

loaded into the system relative to the TAC. 

If you have relatively small TACs and the 

data coming in small chunks then you might 

be okay. If the data all come in at once, you 

could seriously over blow that TAC very 

seriously. So I think it’s a matter of scale, 

rather than observer coverage, which is 

related to scale 

Response 

Gib Brogan

Oceana, USA 

Over the course the conference you’ve heard 

reference to the Northeast Standardized 

bycatch reporting methodology, which is a 

project of the National Marine Fisheries 

Service here in the NE region, and they 

looked issue of how many observers do we 

need to get adequate information about the 

fisheries. They worked with Oceana; this 

process was actually the result of some of 

our litigation. And unfortunately, that long 

study looked only at precision. We heard 

reference to a 20 and 30 percent CV 

associated with observer coverage as the 

goal, but there was no discussion of 

accuracy. The key to design for all of this 

observer coverage for these programs is the 

accuracy issue. That needs to be factored 

into this and the uncertainty that’s associated 

with accuracy needs to come in. At least in 

the United States, we’re looking right now 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 237
as we implement annual catch limits that 

“scientific uncertainty” is going to be a 

buffer in all of our management. So that 

accuracy, that bias in all of our observer 

data, I’m really hopeful that that is going to 

be factored into our data. 

Question/Comment 

Mike Lindley

West Coast Observer Program, USA 

The question is directed mainly to Alicia 

about the Port Orford community-based 

program. Do the fishers feel that – what’s 

the best incentive for them? Is it to fish in 

areas or depths that they ordinarily wouldn’t 

be able to? Or is it to get more pounds of 

fish? Or is even that within the realm of 

possibility that they would be able to get 

more pounds of fish than they would 

ordinarily be able to? 

Response 

Alicia Billings

Consultant, USA 

Are you talking about the RCA change? 

Comment 

Mike Lindley 

West Coast Observer Program, USA 

Exactly correct. Is there a provision to allow 

them to fish between the 75 and 150 fathom 

limit that they wouldn’t ordinarily be able 

to? 

Response 

Alicia Billings

Consultant, USA 

The only time that they can fish above 125 

fathoms in depth is during the halibut 

openers, which is only one day and rather 

infrequent. But as far as that particular area 

the eastern boundary is still at 30 fathoms. 

That whole area is closed off. They were 

really concerned about the loss of that whole 

area because there is really good sablefish 

habitat. The contour line curves and the 

fishermen say that the black cod like to hang 

out in those curves. And the fishermen lost 

those grounds. That was a huge issue for 

them. 

Comment 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., Canada 

I’d like to add another dimension to this 

discussion. Just from our experience in 

British Columbia, a lot of the talks are on 

coverage levels and data quality and so on – 

sort of focus on the need for quota 

management and improved science but in 

the mixed species fishery that we have in 

BC, in particular for those species in which 

the large need for quota is centered around 

addressing discard requirements, there’s a 

trade-ability element in the fishery that’s 

really important. The fishermen need to be 

able to lease quota from one another in order 

to acquire the species portfolios that are 

needed. My sense, I guess my prediction is 

that as this program evolves, the precision 

level requirements around data quality will 

really focus in order to make the currency of 

this transaction work in a better way. I 

guess an example – if you need to lease 

1000 pounds of halibut, but that 1000 

pounds could be anything from 500 to 1500 

pounds, then your sell or lease that quota 

will have a very different value than if the 

precision requirements are a lot narrower. 

So I think that’s going to be a driver in some 

of the programs that we develop. 

Response/ Comment 

Gordon Gilasion

Economist, Canada 

I think it’s fair to say that the business of 

trading is still in an evolutionary stage. 

Some of these so called “rare species” that 

you need some semblance of in ordinary to 

go out and prosecute a fishery in a boat on a 

fishing trip, are very valuable, and are 

actually trading at more than the market 

price. So if the price of fish you bring to the 

dock is $5.00 per pound, to lease a pound of 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 238
that to go on a fishing trip, you might have 

to pay more than $5.00. So a lot of these 

things are still evolving on that. It will be 

interesting as this evolves, and given what I 

know about fishermen, they will come to a 

solution on this; they will deal with it in 

time. 

Question/Comment 

Kimberly Murray 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

My question is for Gib regarding the cap of 

endangered species across multiple fisheries. 

For those of you who don’t know, in the US, 

under each fishery management plan, if a 

fishery is likely to affect endangered 

species, then the amount of endangered 

species is assessed, and if that amount is not 

going to jeopardize the species, then that 

fishery is granted an allowable take of that 

species. This is done on a fishery-by-fishery 

basis. My question is, what are your 

thoughts on how a cap allocated across the 

different fishery management plans would 

be assessed and implemented. 

Response 

Gib Brogan 

Oceana, USA 

I think the cap – We would look for your 

guidance. As the turtle experts from the 

government, you (NEFSC) do the stock 

assessment, so biologically we’d look for 

guidance from the experts on what a 

particular stock, say, loggerhead turtles, and 

the mortality that the stock could withstand. 

And then from that cap, apply that across the 

fisheries. And they may be aggregated. 

There be an aggregated cap for, say, trawl 

fisheries in New England – or something 

along those lines. So when implemented 

that cap, whatever it is that is dictated by the 

biology of the species, when that’s hit the 

fishing will change. And as far as it’s 

implemented, I think it’s going to take a 

robust observer and at-sea monitoring 

program to look at these rare occurrences. 

Sampling for these rare events is a different 

beast than sampling for common events. So 

it’s going to take some work to put together 

and observer and monitoring program that’s 

going to account for all of takes and count 

them against that cap. 

Comment 

Kimberly Murray 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

I think it’s tricky how that one single 

allocation can be divided among the 

fisheries; that is, whether it’s divided 

equally or by effort or just how you would 

divvy it up. 

Response/ Comment 

Gib Brogan 

Oceana, USA

 

Absolutely, I think that fight is best left to 

the fishery managers with the understanding 

that all of that mortality will stay under an 

acceptable cap number. And that’s our goal 

– to stay under whatever that acceptable cap 

number is. Allocation is best left to the 

managers. In our belief, that’s what 

Magnuson was meant to do, to let the 

managers allocate initially available catch, 

but we’re looking more at the issue of 

protected species as well. 

Comment 

Craig Loveridge 

Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand 

I’d just like to make a comment on that last 

point about how the shares are allocated 

among individual fishers. In Alaska, the 

AKRO has traditionally used historical catch 

(whatever your historical catch was). This 

introduces an interesting incentive, because 

fishers would increase their fishing for a 

particular species if they thought a closed 

system was going to go into place. So then 

what the region did was they used as their 

basis landings data from six years ago. It 

introduces an interesting problem. They are 

using years that may not be representative of 

true fishing efforts, but they are trying to 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 239
eliminate this incentive to fish a particular 

species that you may not have fished before 

because you think it’s going to be closed. 

It’s an added wrinkle. 

Comment 

Kjell Needreas 

Institute of Marine Research, Norway 

Following up on Bob Trumble’s question - 

What are the consequences of reducing the 

coverage in our sampling? I will use the 

opportunity to make some “PR” for two 

important ICES workshops. Last year there 

was a workshop on bias. This year in 

September there will be a workshop on 

precision. And you know, together, this is 

about accuracy. I think in those cases where 

you have today 100% coverage, that is very 

good opportunity to do simulations. You 

can reduce by random the data to a lower 

coverage and you can see what 

consequences this has for various purposes. 

As far as key words, I mentioned the 

variance component analyzers, and effective 

sampling size – I think we should do more 

of that in order to document our sampling, 

our needs for sampling, and the precision 

that is necessary. 

Comment 

Susan Wigley 

NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

I have a comment as a follow-up to Gib’s 

reply about SBRM and accuracy. The 

analytic component to the SBRM Omnibus 

Amendment did include a spectrum of 

analyses, including precision, but it did 

include accuracy, looking at the spatial and 

temporal patterns of our observer program, 

as well as trip length and total trip pounds 

kept by observed and unobserved trips. I’d 

be happy to discuss those analyses with 

anyone who has any questions regarding 

them. 

Question 

Jann Martinsohn 

European Commission, Italy 

Graeme, did you look beyond the European 

Union to places such as Iceland and their 

rights-based management systems. Are 

there any lessons, be it positive or negative, 

to be learned? 

Response 

Graeme Parkes 

MRAG Ltd., United Kingdom 

Well, actually, we wanted to, but we were 

told specifically not to. This study was very 

focused on Europe. We felt that we had to 

get information out there, so that people like 

Rebecca Lent could remember about 

Europe, for example. We did actually have 

an Icelandic member of our team, Rigra 

Anderson, who is a well known economist 

and who has done a lot of work on rightsbased management. He was actually very 

helpful and very instrumental in our study of 

the attributes of the systems and the Q-value 

and so on. That was a concern to some of 

the people on the Commission, because they 

didn’t want some sort of theoretical 

treatment of rights and that sort of thing. 

What they really wanted was information 

about the situation of rights-based 

management with the EU. The only 

component that we did look at in Iceland 

was with respect to the allocation of rights. 

There is a legal procedure going on at the 

time about initial allocation that had 

happened in Iceland, so we presented a piece 

in the report on that and the implications that 

might have on the different ways of 

allocating rights within Europe. That was 

really as far as we went. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 240
Panel Session 12: 

How can electronic monitoring be used to improve data 

collection activities? 

Moderator: Howard McElderry, Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., Canada 

Speakers 

Julie Bonney – USA 

Electronic monitoring in the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Fishery 

Melissa Sanderson – USA 

 Electronic Catch Monitoring in New England’s Groundfish Fishery 

Morgan Dyas – Canada 

Using Electric Monitoring to estimate reef fish catch on bottom longline vessels in the Gulf of Mexico: a 

pilot study. 

Andrew France – New Zealand 

Assessing protected species interactions using electronic monitoring technology- a pilot study in New 

Zealand Longline Fisheries 

Stephanie Rowe – New Zealand 

A new approach to monitoring protected species interactions with inshore trawl vessels 

Martin Loefflad – USA 

Summary of the North Pacific Electronic Fisheries Monitoring Workshop, July 2008 

Introduction to the session 

Electronic monitoring technology typically consists of multiple closed circuit television cameras, 

a GPS receiver, a hydraulic pressure sensor, a winch sensor, and a system control box. EM has 

been deployed on variety of fishing vessels to monitor a range of fisheries issues including 

fishing location, catch, catch handling, fishing methods, protected species interactions, and 

mitigation measures. There are six presentations within this session, crossing broad geographies, 

fisheries and fisheries monitoring issues. In addition to these, the use of EM technology has 

infused the conference in several previous presentations speaking to its applicability in various 

other applications. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 241
Electronic monitoring in the central 

Gulf of Alaska rockfish fishery 

*Julie A. Bonney1

, Alan Kinsolving2, Jennifer Watson2, Kathleen McGauley1

Alaska Groundfish Data Bank, Inc.1

, Kodiak, Alaska, Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska 

Regional Office, NOAA Fisheries, Juneau, Alaska2

Introduction

In 2007, the Central Gulf of Alaska rockfish fishery shifted to a quota share system. Under the 

new program, each catcher vessel cooperative is allocated a share of various rockfish species, 

sablefish and Pacific cod. Additionally, the cooperatives are allocated halibut prohibited species 

catch (PSC) to allow the prosecution of the fishery. Halibut PSC must be discarded at-sea and, at 

this time, can only be effectively accounted against the cooperative’s PSC quota if there is an 

observer onboard to estimate the halibut catch in each haul. However, North Pacific Groundfish 

Observer Program sampling methods were not designed for haul specific catch accounting on 

individual vessels. In 2005, a pilot study was conducted to evaluate the use of electronic 

monitoring (EM) to monitor discards in the CGOA rockfish fishery1

. The final report stressed 

that if discard was restricted to a single location and discard species were limited to only halibut 

PSC, the effectiveness of EM would increase. If effective and feasible, EM in the CGOA rockfish 

pilot program may improve estimation of halibut bycatch, instill vessel-level accountability for all 

hauls, reduce the need for at-sea observer coverage and prove to be a more cost effective option 

for the inshore rockfish co-op fleet. In 2007 and 2008, an exempted fishery permit study was 

conducted to determine whether EM could quantify halibut discard if the 2005 study 

recommendations were followed. Phase I was designed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of 

EM by comparing the at-sea estimates of halibut PSC generated by EM versus the census values 

and to compare both to observer-derived estimates; Phase II examined qualitative issues such as 

industry self-reporting, data management, cost structure, timeliness and shoreside support that 

need to be considered before fleet-wide implementation. 

Methods

In 2007, one catcher vessel made six trips targeting rockfish, sablefish or Pacific cod. All catch 

other than halibut was retained and halibut were discarded through a single discard chute premarked with a measurement grid. All halibut were measured by project staff prior to being 

discarded. The EM system was designed to monitor for 100% retention and collect video and 

sensor data at sea that would allow a shoreside reviewer to enumerate the number of halibut 

discarded at sea and to estimate their lengths. In addition, each tow was sampled for species 

composition according to the current observer program protocols. In 2008, the study was 

broadened to explore the use of EM on more than one vessel in a co-op over the course of the 

entire season. EM was installed on four vessels and, in addition to following the Phase I protocol, 

the operators were also requested to tally discarded halibut by size category (small, medium and 

large) and to submit this tally sheet to the Co-op manager after each trip. The skipper-derived 

average weights were compared to those generated by EM. Project staff recorded dates and times 

for vessel arrival, hard drive retrieval, data submission to the EM provider, and arrival of the final 

EM weight estimates of discarded halibut by tow per trip per vessel. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 242
Results/Discussion

The results of Phase I in 2007 showed 

that the video-based length estimates of 

discarded halibut had a high level of 

precision and were not biased relative to 

the at-sea census of halibut2,3 (figure 1). 

Compared to the census values, observer 

sampling underestimated the overall 

halibut weight and halibut numbers.

The study supported the use of EM to 

obtain estimates of halibut PSC catch at 

the haul level. 

The trip tallies taken by crew and 

skippers during Phase II corresponded 

close enough to the EM estimates to 

allow for interim and immediate Co-op 

PSC management needs (figure 2) 

given the relatively long time lag 

between vessel arrival and receipt of t

final EM data (ranging from 15-37 

days, average of 26.4 days) when no 

local EM technician/reviewer was 

town. Whereas Phase II of the p

encountered some technical difficulties, 

losing about 16% of the EM haul data, 

these computer glitches would probably 

be alleviated by using updated software 

and electronics. The results indicate that 

local, shoreside support is essential for 

cost-effective and timely collection and receipt of EM raw and finalized data. Vessel EM costs 

would likely lessen with increased participation in fisheries requiring EM systems.

Figure 1. Census v. avg. EM halibut length for the 618 

Phase I hauls. 

he 

in 

roject

 Figure 2. Phase II: EM v. operator halibut weight 

estimates by trip for the four participating vessels (n=30). 

Notes: 

1. McElderry, H., R. Reidy, J. Illingworth, and M. Buckley. 2005. Electronic Monitoring for the Kodiak 

Rockfish Fishery – A Pilot Study. Unpublished Report Prepared for the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, Portland, OR, USA by Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., Victoria BC Canada, and Digital 

Observer Inc., Kodiak, Alaska, USA. 43 pp. 

2. McElderry, H., J. Schraeder, T. Wallin, S. Oh. 2008. Trials on F/V Sea Mac To Evaluate the Use of 

Electronic Monitoring for the Kodiak, AK Rockfish Pilot Program. Unpublished report prepared for 

Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation, Juneau, AK. 17 pp. 

3. Haist, V. 2008. Alaska Groundfish Data Bank study to evaluate an electric monitoring program for 

estimating halibut discards: Statistical analysis of study data. Unpublished report prepared for Marine 

Conservation Alliance Foundation, Juneau, AK. 28 pp. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 243
Electronic catch monitoring in New England's groundfish fishery 

Melissa Sanderson 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association, USA 

Catch share management, in the form of community-based Sectors, will be implemented in New 

England’s groundfish fishery in 2010, with the intent to end overfishing on many stocks. 

Accurately accounting for annual quotas will require a regional change in monitoring intensity 

and has spurred the exploration of alternative monitoring techniques. The Cape Cod Commercial 

Hook Fishermen’s Association (CCCHFA) contracted Archipelago Marine Research on two pilot 

projects to test the feasibility of using electronic monitoring to quantify catch (landings and 

discards) on the benthic longline and gillnet dayboat fleets fishing under quota-based 

management. The pilot studies field-tested EM systems consisting of up to three closed circuit 

television cameras, a GPS receiver, hydraulic pressure and rotational gear sensors, and a data 

storage device. At sea observers were deployed on nearly all trips in order to evaluate the quality 

of EM catch data. Fishing event imagery was examined for species identification, enumeration of 

catch and verification of fishing times. Participating vessels belonged to the Georges Bank Cod 

Hook Sector or the Georges Bank Fixed Gear Sector. They began fishing under community 

quotas for cod in 2004 and 2006, respectively, and will be required to have a robust monitoring 

plan approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service by 2011. The EM pilots have led the 

way in exposing New England to the possibility of supplementing human observers with 

electronic monitoring. In this monitoring application, EM offers a number of advantages over 

observer programs including lower cost, labor savings, logistical efficiency, fleet suitability, and 

increased industry acceptance. Issues hindering the implementation of an EM-based monitoring 

program include expanding fleet awareness of EM program requirements, local infrastructure to 

support such a program, and solidifying data sharing agreements that specify what information 

would be collected and how it would be used. 

Using electronic monitoring to estimate reef fish catch on 

bottom longline vessels in the Gulf of Mexico: A pilot study 

Maria Jose Pria, Howard McElderry, *Morgan Dyas, Paul Wesley

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

The need to provide better bycatch estimates in the Gulf of Mexico commercial longline reef fish 

fishery is the third action item priority for FY07-FY08 in the Southeast Region’s Bycatch 

Implementation Plan. Consequently, NOAA Fisheries is interested in exploring cost effective 

methods of monitoring bycatch aboard bottom longline vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico. 

In the spring of 2008, a feasibility study on the use of video-based electronic monitoring 

technology (EM) was cooperatively conducted between industry, MRAG Americas Inc., NOAA 

Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center, the Southeast Regional Office and 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. EM technology was selected because of its demonstrated 

effectiveness in collecting the time and location of fishing events and in monitoring bycatch, 

catch handling and other shipboard practices1

. 

The study was designed to trial EM installations on vessels actively engaged in fishing operations 

targeting Grouper in both shallow and deep water. The two main objectives were, first to 

determine if the imagery collected by EM systems is of sufficient resolution and clarity to allow a 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 244
video analyst to accurately record the number of hooks and to count and identify species, and 

second to test how well fishing data collected by EM systems compared with data collected by 

on-board observers from NOAA Fisheries’ Gulf of Mexico Reef Fishery Observer Program. 

Each EM system consisted of three closed circuit television cameras, a GPS receiver, a hydraulic 

pressure transducer, a rotation sensor, a system control box and a monitor and keyboard. EM 

system software was configured to log data from sensors every 10 seconds and to capture 

Species (Com m on Nam e; Latin Nam e )

And

Species Groups

Percent 

Occurrence

Average 

Pieces per 

Set

Total 

Observer 

Pieces

Total EM 

Pieces

Total Piece

Difference

Percent 

Difference

Red Grouper; Epinephelus m orio 96.3% 40.7 8598 8428 170 2.0%

Gag; Mycteroperca m icrolepis 18.7% 1.5 61 62 -1 -1.6%

Yellowedge Grouper; Epinephelus flavolim batus 2.3% 12.2 61 52 9 14.8%

All other groupers 16.0% 1.3 56 24 32 57.1%

Total for Groupers 8776 8566 210 2.4%

Atlantic Sharpnose Shark; Rhizoprionodon terraenovae 46.1% 4.5 457 898 -441 -96.5%

G eneral Sharks (Fam ily); Carcharhinidae 21.0% 6.0 275 26 249 90.5%

Blacknose Shark; Carcharhinus acronotus 36.5% 3.1 244 66 178 73.0%

Nurse Shark; G inglym ostom a cirratum 9.6% 1.3 28 19 9

Silky Shark; Carcharhinus falciform is 7.8% 1.4 24 7 17

All other sharks 19.7% 1.2 59 38 21 35.6%

Total for Sharks 1087 1054 33 3.0%

Red Snapper; Lutjanus cam pechanus 28.8% 2.0 124 119 5 4.0%

All other snappers 39.7% 1.7 52 40 12 23.1%

Total for Snappers 176 159 17 9.7%

Total for Porgies 14.2% 1.5 48 42 6

Total for Lizardfishes 13.2% 1.4 42 44 -2

Total for M orays 11.4% 1.3 35 27 8

Total for Tilefishes 1.8% 3.8 23 22 1

Total for Toadfishes 8.2% 1.1 19 19 0

Total for Rays and Skates 3.7% 1.3 10 10 0

Total for Tunas, Bonitos, and M ackerels 3.2% 1.0 7 6 1

Total for Eels 1.8% 1.3 5 4 1

Total for Jacks 10.0% 1.7 37 37 0

Total for Drum s 1.4% 1.0 3 4 -1

Total for Seabasses 0.9% 1.0 2 1 1

Unknown Fish 0.9% 1.0 2 22 -20

Total for O ther Fish 32.0% 1.3 113 91 22 19.5%

Loggerhead Turtle; Caretta caretta 0.9% 1.0 2 2 0

G eneral Turtle 0.5% 1.0 1 0 1

Total for Turtles 321

O verall C atch T o tals 47.3 10388 10110 278 2.7%

Table 1: Summary of total catch by species or species group 

imagery during hauling and setting events. Video recording was triggered by the rotation of the 

groundline drum or an increase in hydraulic pressure above a pre-determined threshold and was 

set to run on for ten minutes after fishing activity had ceased. 

EM sensor data and imagery were interpreted sequentially. Initially, sensor data were used to 

resolve trip and fishing event information and to evaluate each sensors functionality. Then, 

during imagery review, the quality of the imagery was assessed, catch was counted and identified 

to its lowest taxonomical grouping, and each catch item’s disposition was recorded. 100% of the 

sensor data collected during the study were interpreted; while imagery review was conducted 

only for hauls where both the imagery and the observer data were complete. Data from observers 

and EM were compared at the project, haul and hook level and were only combined after all of 

the selected imagery was reviewed. 

Six vessels ranging in length from 40 ft to 50 ft carried EM systems during the study. Data 

collection spanned a two-month period, capturing two fishing trips for each vessel totaling 148 

days at sea. Every vessel carried an observer at least once, resulting in seven trips with data 

collected by both observers and EM. In total, EM systems collected over 2,000 hours of sensor 

data, and 645 hours of haul imagery associated with 325 fishing events. Sensor data capture 

success was 65%, where 92% of the data loss was associated with vessel operators manually 

powering down the EM system. Imagery capture was complete for 218 hauls of the 245 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 245
observed; 22 of those included hook level catch data. Overall, more than 10,000 catch items were 

available for comparison (Table 1). 

High levels of agreement were found between EM and observer data at each level of the 

comparison. At the project level, the set start and haul end dates and times in the EM sensor data 

were on average, within one minute of those recorded by observers. As well, imagery viewers 

recorded counts for the total number of pieces caught (Table 1) within 2.7% of those recorded by 

observers and identified two out of the three protected species interactions. At the haul level, 

total piece counts were on average within 2.5% of each other and counts by both data sources for 

all major species were within one piece for 73% of the hauls in which they occurred. In general, 

species groups (e.g. sharks, amberjacks, toadfishes, etc) compared better than individual species. 

A much lower level of agreement occurred when catch disposition was compared, with piece 

differences averaging about 14 per haul for retained and 16 per haul for non-retained catch. At 

the hook level, Red Grouper were positively identified on 948 of 953 hooks or with a 92% 

success rate and EM was within 15% of the observers when counts of more than 19,000 blank 

hooks were compared. 

Results of this study indicate that EM systems can collect data that compare well with data 

collected by on-board observers in the Gulf of Mexico longline fishery. EM systems were 

successful in collecting haul level sensor and imagery data but failed to consistently collect 

complete trip level data primarily because vessel operators were turning systems off to conserve 

power. EM sensor data gave accurate times and locations of fishing trip activities and imagery 

viewers provided similar counts of hooks and target and non-target species to those of observers. 

However, the identification of some catch to the species level, the ability to identify all protected 

species interactions and determining catch disposition proved more difficult. Discrepancies in 

species identification and EM failing to recognize one night time sea turtle interaction were 

mainly due to the temporary nature of the study since less than optimum camera angles and poor 

lighting went uncorrected. As well, the unsuccessful determination of catch disposition was due 

to catch being handled in an inconsistent manner and often discarded from multiple locations. 

Future work with EM on this fishery would benefit from a strong outreach process educating 

vessel operators on EM system operation and thorough feedback loops aimed at finding optimum 

camera views and lighting. Similarly, more work on encouraging consistent catch handling 

procedures is necessary if EM is to track catch disposition on this fleet. 

Notes: 

1. McElderry, H. 2008. At Sea Observing Using Video-Based Electronic Monitoring. Background paper 

prepared for the Electronic Monitoring Workshop, Seattle WA.

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 246
Assessing protected species interactions using EM technology - 

a pilot study in new zealand longline fisheries 

Andrew France1 

Observer Services, Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand1 

Introduction

At-sea observers are currently the primary method for monitoring protected species interactions 

in longline fisheries in New Zealand. Due to observer costs and a number of vessels not being 

suitable for observer coverage, the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) wanted to examine alternative 

monitoring methods. MFish initiated a pilot project to investigate the use of electronic monitoring 

(EM) technology on longline vessels, and contracted Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. to carry 

out the project. Archipelago worked in collaboration with Lat 37 Ltd., a New Zealand based 

company that specialises in applied technology for the fishing industry. 

The specific objectives of the project were to: 

• Trial the deployment of electronic monitoring (EM) systems in selected longline fisheries, 

monitoring incidental take of protected species; 

• Evaluate the efficacy of electronic monitoring in allowing enumeration and identification of 

protected species captures; and, 

• Recommend options for data management and information transfer arising from the 

deployment of electronic monitoring in selected fisheries. 

Methods

The project used at-sea observers for comparison with data collected by an EM system. It 

spanned a nine-month period during which EM systems and MFish observers were 

simultaneously in place on two pelagic and two demersal longline vessels for a total of 8 trips and 

198 fishing events, and about 100 days of vessel time at sea. Each vessel was provided with a 

standard EM system. The two demersal longline vessels collectively logged about half the sea 

time and 80% of the fishing events, and the two pelagic longline vessels recorded slightly more 

time at sea and only 20% of the fishing events. Vessel 1 was a 46m large factory demersal autolongline vessel; Vessel 2 was a 14m coastal demersal longline vessel; Vessel 3 was a 24m pelagic 

longline vessel; and Vessel 4 was a 19m pelagic longline vessel. 

Results

As the project was comparing EM and observer estimates, it was important to match the two data 

sets. This was difficult due to incomplete sensor data on significant portions of fishing trips for all 

but one vessel. Unsuccessful sensor data capture from the EM deployments was primarily caused 

by: 

• the EM system being manually shut off 

• a poor GPS signal caused by interference from one vessel’s radar 

• the EM system being powered down when fishing operations were not occurring 

• a problem with one vessel’s electrical system 

There were different numbers of fishing events recorded by observers and EM systems, but 172 

fishing events were able to be matched. Image capture rate was generally high across the four 

vessels, probably due to the efforts made by observers to ensure that EM systems were operating 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 247
when retrieval operations were underway. As it was not expected that many protected species 

encounters would occur, some fishing events were also viewed to identify all catch. This provided 

an assessment of how well catch items could be identified from EM imagery. Imagery from 39 

fishing events was assessed for all catch items and imagery from 122 fishing events was assessed 

for protected species. 

The camera placements were opportunistic due to their temporary nature, and in nearly all 

instances were not ideal. This impacted on the quality of catch information that could be 

obtained. The shorter branch lines with demersal longline gear made camera placements easier as 

the field of view was smaller. The longer branch lines with pelagic longline gear made it more 

demanding for cameras to successfully capture catch information. 

Observers recorded nine protected species interactions, eight seabird incidents and one sea turtle; 

and only two of the incidents were within view of the cameras. Four of the eight seabird 

encounters were deck landings, and two involved seabirds colliding with the mainline and 

becoming entangled during hauling, but not coming aboard at the roller. The other two incidents 

were seabirds hooked at the hauler, with one seabird released before the roller, out of camera 

view. The other seabird came aboard at the hauler, and was detected by EM. The other encounter 

involved a Leatherback Turtle becoming entangled in the mainline. During the initial review of 

the EM imagery, viewers did not detect this encounter due to the camera being viewed. When 

imagery was re-examined after comparing with observer data, the imagery from another camera 

view clearly showed the interaction, and positive identification was able to be made. 

The percent difference between EM and observer catch counts varied across vessels, but there 

were about 60% of the sets which had a difference of less than 20%. The EM counts were lower 

that observer counts in all but 10 fishing events, suggesting that not all recorded catch was 

viewable by EM. There were issues with observer data that influenced the comparison, with some 

observer data taken from vessel records. 

Imagery was successfully recorded from all vessels during longline setting, and although seabirds 

and streamer lines were evident in the field of view, performance and behaviour was difficult to 

assess from the camera perspectives. 

The ratio of image analysis time relative to real time was computed for all imagery examined. 

Image viewing for protected species only, could be accomplished at about 50% of real time. 

Interpretation for all catch was almost the same as real time. The following conclusions were 

reached: 

• The issues which affected 100% sensor data capture are resolvable. 

• There were no instances of malfunctioning equipment resulting in data failure. 

• The EM systems were suitable for all vessels covered, and should also be suitable for the 

component of the fleet not suitable for observer placement. 

• The camera placement issues should be resolvable. 

• With regard to the pelagic longline vessels, results from this project are inconclusive. Further 

testing of EM is needed in this fishery. 

• With regard to the demersal longline fishery, EM shows promise. 

However, the level of industry co-operation will strongly affect the success of an EM-based 

monitoring program. In this project, it was difficult to find vessels interested in participating. Of 

the four vessels covered, there were both willing and reluctant participants. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 248
EM will likely depend on several issues, the main ones being cost and convenience (as compared 

with observers), opportunities for value-adding EM by addressing data needs of industry, and 

policies governing the use and ownership of data. 

A New Approach to Monitoring Protected Species Interactions 

with Inshore Trawl Vessels 

Simon Anderson1, *Stephanie Rowe2, Igor Debski2, Johanna Pierre2

Lat 37 Ltd, New Zealand

Marine Conservation Services, Department of Conservation, New Zealand2

Introduction

Over the last ten years, the Conservation Services Programme (CSP) of the New Zealand 

Department of Conservation has monitored interactions between large trawl vessels (> 28 m in 

length) and protected species, by placement of government observers on vessels. The data 

gathered has been key to developing an understanding of the significant risk posed to protected 

seabirds and marine mammals, and has enabled the development of a number of successful 

methods to reduce protected species bycatch. However, very little is known on the extent of 

interactions between smaller inshore vessels and protected species. The use of fisheries observers 

to perform this monitoring has been limited by the small size of inshore vessels which may not 

have room to accommodate extra personnel, the less predictable fishing schedules and lack of 

governance structure to liaise with over placements. Since January 2007 CSP has placed a limited 

number of observers on these small vessels for the first time and early results show the potentially 

large impact they may have on protected species, including albatrosses, shearwaters and marine 

mammals. 

In 2008 CSP started investigating novel ways of increasing monitoring coverage and 

understanding of the interactions between small inshore trawl vessels and protected species in 

New Zealand fisheries. This included a six month trial of electronic monitoring (EM) on two 

small inshore trawl vessels. The key objective of the trial was to evaluate the use of EM for 

protected species interactions with fishing vessels, and use of associated mitigation methods and 

other related fishing practices, in inshore trawl fisheries in New Zealand. 

Specific fishery monitoring objectives for the analysis included: 

1. Providing detailed recommendations for improvements to field operations. 

2. For a representative sample of fishing events, determine the feasibility of using the EM 

data to record the protected species retrieved from the gear; rate of occurrence and 

number of protected species around the stern of the vessel; number of seabird interactions 

with warp(s); lowest level of identification possible for protected species; deployment of 

mitigation devices and presence/absence and quantification of discard and offal 

discharge. 

3. Develop a standard methodology that can be used on future EM data sets from inshore 

trawl fisheries. 

4. For EM-monitored fishing events where a government observer was present, provide a 

comparison between the two methods. 

5. Provide detailed recommendations on optimal storage/archiving of EM sensor and image 

data and any other recommendations relevant to future deployment of EM systems in 

New Zealand fisheries. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 249
Methods

In early 2008, trials were performed to evaluate the potential use of EM in capturing PS 

interactions within the NZ inshore trawl fishery. EM systems consisted of four closed circuit 

television cameras, a GPS receiver, a hydraulic pressure sensor, winch sensor, and system control 

box. EM sensor data were recorded continuously while the EM system was powered, and was 

intended to be recording for the entire duration of the fishing trip. Sensor data were recorded 

every 10 seconds with a data storage requirement of 0.5 MB per day. Image capture occurred 

only during fishing operations. 

EM image data were sent to Archipelago Marine Research Ltd in Canada for processing. As part 

of image data analysis, every tow was rated for image quality and usability. Image data quality 

was assessed as an average across all four-camera views while usability was determined based on 

individual fishery monitoring objectives. 

Results/Discussion 

EM systems were deployed on two inshore vessels fishing off the NE coast of New Zealand’s 

North Island, recording a collective total of 14 months, 65 fishing trips, over 260 vessel days at 

sea, and 1,022 fishing events. Overall sensor data capture success averaged 84% with 

considerable variability between trips due to the EM system being manually powered off during 

the trip. Image recording was complete for 85% of fishing events. Detailed image analysis was 

conducted for six protected species monitoring objectives on a sample of 150 fishing events, plus 

60 additional events where an observer was also aboard. Image quality was medium to high for 

virtually all (99%) of the image data but usability for specific monitoring objectives varied from 

0% for warp interactions and 80%-95% for the remaining objectives. 

The results from this study show EM to have a range of efficacy for the monitoring objectives 

examined and observer data were superior in most cases. EM has tremendous potential for 

monitoring protected species catch occurrences, providing general index of seabird abundance, 

and routine monitoring for mitigation practices such as offal discharge and deployment of gear 

avoidance devices. 

The use of EM for detailed observations of warp strikes, or providing a detailed census of 

seabirds astern of the vessel would likely be ineffective. This study demonstrated the difficulty of 

achieving all monitoring issues equally well and improvements to the usability of imagery would 

be a process of prioritizing the specific monitoring issues and determining camera placements 

that best meet these needs. Working with the crew to develop more standardized catch-handling 

operations will also improve the ability to accurately document events from image data. A 

possible next step, if more widespread deployment is desired for management, is for the 

Department of Conservation to seek industry involvement in the design and development of an 

EM programme. 

The successful deployment of EM in this trial was made possible by the active cooperation of the 

fishing company involved. Early results have shown the EM systems to be capable of capturing 

protected species interactions with the vessels and further analysis is underway at the time of 

writing. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 250
Summary of the North Pacific electronic fisheries monitoring 

workshop, July 2008 

*Martin Loefflad1;Nicole Kimball2;Jennifer Watson1;Francis Wiese3; 

Chris Oliver2;Bob Trumble4 

National Marine Fisheries Service1, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council2, North 

Pacific Fisheries Research Board3, MRAG Americas, Inc4. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and North 

Pacific Fisheries Research Board collaborated on a workshop in the summer of 2008 which 

focused on video and other electronic monitoring (EM) of commercial fisheries. The goals of the 

workshop were to: 1) review past and in-progress work using video technology, 2) identify legal 

and management implementation concerns, 3) evaluate video’s applicability to management of 

the North Pacific Fisheries, and 4) assess future research and development needs and 

opportunities. While the focus of the workshop was on the applicability of video to Alaskan 

groundfish and halibut fisheries, there was national and international interest and participation. 

Within the Alaskan fisheries community, participants included government agencies, the fishing 

industry, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council members, and the environmental 

community. Key points include: 

• The methodology is well established with proven technology and successful applications, 

but that EM is not applicable for all cases. 

• EM has many potential applications for North Pacific fisheries. Incorporating EM into a 

monitoring program will depend heavily on the objectives of the particular program; two 

programs that rely on EM to various extents demonstrate the future potential for EM in 

the US North Pacific. 

• Developers of monitoring programs that use EM should consider the full sampling needs 

of the program, and combine technology and observers in a way that takes advantage of 

what EM and observers do best. 

• A substantial amount of research and evaluation is needed before managers and scientists 

can take full advantage of the benefits of EM. 

A report is available at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/observer/observer.htm 

Question and Answer 

The question and answer session below captures the dynamic dialog between panelists and the audience. Each 

discussion is separated by a double line break 

Question/ Comment 

Lori Steele 

New England Fishery 

Management Council 

USA 

One of the points that I’ve certainly taken 

from pretty much every conversation I’ve 

had about electronic monitoring is how 

important it is to have industry support and 

industry buy-in to really ensure the success 

of the project. 

One of the alternatives that we’re 

considering for the Atlantic Herring 

Monitoring Program that we’re developing 

simply mandates that electronic monitoring 

be used across the entire fishery with what I 

would consider to be somewhat limited 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 251
testing. I believe its Melissa’s group that 

has expressed support and stood behind that 

proposal. This would essentially require 

electronic monitoring on potentially 40 to 

100 fishing vessels depending on whom it 

applied to, which hasn’t fully been 

determined yet. We haven’t done a lot of 

testing and I’ve heard a lot today about pilot 

projects and research and testing. 

Is there support for a top down approach to 

implementing electronic monitoring and 

does anybody have any experience with 

that? Are there fisheries out there where it’s 

just simply been required without a lot of 

testing specific to that fishery? And related 

to that, how important do you feel it is to 

have industry buy-in and support for this 

kind of an approach to be successful? 

Response 

Julie Bonney 

Alaska Groundfish Databank 

USA

I guess from my perspective in Kodiak 

there’s about 30 vessels that are involved in 

the rock fish pilot program. There’s a lot of 

discussion in-house about whether or not the 

vessels would be willing to put on cameras. 

You have two segments of the fleet – one 

group that’s more progressive and others 

that are the old school. So our vision has 

always been that there are two options. You 

can choose the EM path or you can continue 

to go with the 100 percent human observer 

requirement. 

I really think the issue of buy-in is going to 

be mostly about costs. So if there’s a cost 

savings with EM I think more will go for 

that door and as you allow people to 

migrate, it will happen over time. I would 

be concerned that if you did a top down 

approach, you may not get the desired result. 

Fishers can defeat EM by getting in front of 

the camera to avoid views, unplug the 

system, and turn it off. So if you force them 

you may not get what you’re hoping for. 

Response 

Stephanie Rowe 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand 

I just wanted to say in terms of industry 

involvement, for us it was a little odd in that 

Sanford, New Zealand owned the vessels 

and the crew are hired, so the crew didn’t 

actually have a choice. That can create quite 

a few difficulties for the technicians who are 

actually trying to put the gear on those 

vessels because the crew can be quite 

resistant to that. So, certainly for us we had 

that high level industry engagement, but we 

need to make sure in the future that we do a 

bit more groundwork with the guys who are 

actually living with it every day. 

Response 

Andrew France 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand

In the New Zealand context we have an 

added complication. Since we are part of 

the Ministry and if we want to collect the 

data we have a strong compliance 

component with the observer program. So 

the whole issue about the use and the 

ownership of the data and what it can and 

can’t be used for, is an added complication 

to the industry perspective. 

If they are really reluctant that what might 

be on the video could end up in our 

compliance team’s hands it makes the task 

even harder. If we don’t get their support 

and them almost wanting to drive EM being 

implemented, it’s not going to work. As 

everyone’s already said, EM can be 

tampered with and even on our trawls with 

the participants we had constant issues of 

power being turned off, and no data 

captured. If it hadn’t been for the observers 

on the boats ensuring that those systems 

were powered on and operating at retrieval 

time we would have got even less data. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 252
Comment 

Martin Loefflad 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I have a fairly strong opinion on this issue 

relative to the comment about top down 

approaches and some of the buy-in you may 

get. If you take a top down approach, I ask 

the question does anybody like a top down 

approach?” 

With top down approaches you can get 

compliance, but you can also generate a fair 

amount of resentment. In the workshop we 

held, we heard in a very large way that buyin and working with the industry was 

essential to the success of these projects. I 

think you see that demonstrated in the work 

that we’re doing with Julie today. 

From my own perspective we work with the 

industry. The industry is smart in ways that 

I am not, and that is a very valuable 

perspective in trying to make these things 

work together. 

Comment 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada

We did work with Bob Stanley a few years 

ago on a fishery in Tasmania that had some 

similar issues as the herring fishery 

indicated here. So, there is some information 

about that, which might help you. The other 

comment I really wanted to make was, even 

the most idealized bottom up approach like I 

described with the Area A, Crab Fishery, 

you are still dealing with this 80/20 element 

where most of the people are moving in the 

direction of monitoring and you have a few 

people that really don’t want to, and it is 

being forced upon them. The program has to 

be set up in a manner to apply equally to the 

whole group. There will be a transitional 

implementation period to achieve this. 

Question/ Comment 

Greg Croft 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada 

I have an observation and a question. My 

observation is I’m quite impressed with the 

correlation between observed data on a trip 

that also has EM data. It’s amazing how 

accurate the EM can be. I wouldn’t have 

thought it was so good. So, I really hand it 

to Archipelago for developing a functional 

system. 

Now my question is ( I assume for these 

pilot studies all the video was looked at) 

once you move into a production system 

how do you balance how much video you 

need to see and the cost of viewing it with 

getting the data and the accuracy you need? 

Response 

Julie Bonney 

Alaska Groundfish Databank 

USA 

That is something that we’ve been 

discussing in-house as we look at 

implementation potential for monitoring 

using EM in a rockfish trawl fishery. You 

approach the question of how good of data 

do you want. For instance, the tally sheets 

that we had indicated the crew did a very 

good job of counting, but their binning was 

slightly off. Is this good enough? 

It all comes back to cost trade off. If you can 

be 80 or 85 percent correct and it costs you 

$80 versus 100 percent and it costs you 

$1,000, that’s something that I struggle with 

and I think that’s where the agency and 

industry are bouncing back and forth. We 

are all about cost. They are all about 

precision. So, I don’t know what the right 

amount of data review is, but I think 

everybody needs to think about yes, 100 

percent is great, but the cost structure really 

goes up. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 253
Response 

Andrew France 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand 

I think that it depends on why you put the 

EM onboard and what you are trying to 

achieve. In our case it was protected species 

interactions. They are rare events and 

you’ve got to have 100 percent monitoring. 

There’s no two ways about it, they are rare 

events and you can’t really extrapolate. 

It also depends if you’re able to compare 

with a data set that you’ve got some 

confidence in, like observer data. If you’re 

looking at discard rates (e.g., watching 

discard chutes) and you’re monitoring a 

percentage of the fleet (or fishery) or and 

you have a baseline that you can then start 

looking at percentages of what you need to 

examine, but otherwise you’ve got to do 100 

percent on some of these things. 

It really comes down to how you’re going to 

use it as a tool to do what in particular and 

whether it’s an adjunct or as a replacement 

for observers. 

Response 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada

Andrew Fedoruk talked yesterday about the 

audit method used in the BC groundfish 

longline fishery and the whole way of trying 

to get fisher log data incorporated into the 

system. The hammer that goes along with 

failing an audit I think that goes a long way 

towards answering your question. Greg 

Workman also talked about a different 

methodology from the same fishery where 

the 10% sample of image data are boot 

strapped to determine confidence intervals 

for different species or areas in question. I 

think there are some really good 

methodologies have been worked out that 

would address sampling levels based on 

your question. 

Response 

Stephanie Rowe 

Ministry of Fisheries, 

New Zealand

 

I think New Zealand is certainly a long way 

from figuring out how we might implement 

EM in the future. We didn’t look at all the 

imagery, that was more related to cost than 

anything else, but one thing for us is when 

those protected species captures happened 

we knew exactly which imagery to look at 

because the hired crew was running around, 

they knew it had been picked up on the 

camera. They probably wouldn’t have done 

that otherwise. 

Response 

Martin Loefflad 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

The answer to your question came up earlier 

I believe. I believe Kjell Nedreaas from 

Norway touched on it a little in that with the 

video imagery, at least in some of the hook 

and line operations we see, you have a 

census. It’s your choice as to whether you 

want to look at every image. You could 

potentially sub-sample that depending on 

your precision needs and the costs that you 

can deal with. 

So, you have a gold mine of information, but 

how much of that information you extract 

really depends on what you want to achieve 

with it. So consider potentially sub-sampling 

to save money. 

Question/ Comment 

Will Ward

Gulf Fishermen’s Association 

USA 

I have three questions: 

First: Are there resolution or identification 

issues regarding protected species? I believe 

someone from New Zealand alluded to a 50 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 254
percent identification rate. In the Gulf of 

Mexico we had three turtles through the 

observer and two through the video So, I 

don’t know if that would be a good case in 

essence, but the other may be. 

Second: If you could, elaborate on the 

accuracy of gear sensors, in essence, from 

hydraulic sensors for long line length 

determination, in our fishery for example. 

In terms of the accuracy, in recent 

Amendment 31 discussions gear length 

modifications were being considered as a 

possible remedy for turtle mitigation, law 

enforcement spoke strongly against it 

because they didn’t’ think it was 

enforceable. 

Third: So the third question kind of morphs 

into more of a legal question. Have there 

been any cases involving EM in terms of 

litigation and in terms of proof testing? If so 

I’d like to know what they were and what 

were the findings. 

Response 

Andrew France 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand

As far as identification is concerned, image 

resolution in our project was pretty good. 

The issue with the missed turtle was 

primarily viewer experience in that type of 

fishery. Image viewers have a monitor that 

could have one, two or three, camera images 

displayed, and there is usually one main 

image where most of the viewing 

interpretations are made. In this particular 

case where the turtle wasn’t detected, the 

secondary camera provided a clear view of 

the turtle capture while there was no activity 

in the main camera. 

With knowledge of a fishery and associated 

deck activities, an experienced viewer would 

have immediately recognized this kind of 

event and would have easily detected the 

turtle capture event. 

The sensor issue with long lining, we found 

from the pilot and Howard will elaborate 

more on this probably, some of the vessels 

had quite different hydraulic and winch 

patterns to they’ve experienced previously. 

One of the vessels had a multitude of 

hydraulic lines and it was difficult to know 

what was going on with some of the sensor 

information. So with a lot of these issues, 

it’s about getting the right set up and it’s just 

going to take time. Each vessel is slightly 

different. We were doing a pilot. We were 

doing opportunistic camera placements. We 

weren’t majorly impacting on the vessels, 

having to put up structures and things to put 

the cameras in exactly the right places. 

There were only one or two deployments; 

not long periods. 

You get what you put into some of these 

things. We were happy with their pilot, but 

if we take it further we’re going to have to 

do a lot more work in terms of looking at 

each individual vessel and setting them up 

specifically for those vessels. 

The third one on litigation, I can’t really 

answer that. It would be completely 

different here as to what we’ve got in New 

Zealand. 

Response 

Stephanie Rowe 

Ministry of Fisheries 

New Zealand 

In relation to your first question, in our trial 

it was pretty easy to identify the species that 

were by caught because the bottle nose 

dolphin, it’s pretty bloody huge and obvious 

and the gannet is also quite different to a lot 

of the other species. 

New Zealand has over 80 taxa of seabird 

species. Even observers struggle with 

identifying a lot of our petrels and 

shearwaters. New Zealand observers 

recover all seabird mortalities and return 

them to a shore lab for necropsy. So that’s 

something that EM can’t do, but under 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 255
special permit theoretically you could get 

fishermen to do it. 

What we didn’t get to test is whether EM 

could pick up water soaked petrol in the 

catch. So that’s something that we’ll want 

to figure out if we can do in the future. 

Response 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

 

In terms of the enforcement cases, the Area 

A crab fishery has been in place for ten 

years or so and there’s a bit of history there. 

Most of the issues that have occurred in that 

fishery have been settled through just 

administrative penalties, fines, compliance 

bonds and so on. There was one case that 

elevated from the Area A Crab Association 

to the Department of Fisheries for 

prosecution in court. After a couple of years 

the case was eventually settled out of court 

to the satisfaction of the association. 

With the implementation of the BC 

groundfish hook and line EM program, like 

crab fishery, most issues are resolved 

through feedback and administrative 

penalties. There were two cases involving 

fishing in closed areas and the Department 

of Fisheries was successful in both. 

Question/ Comment 

Jerry Cygler 

East West Technical Services 

USA 

Melissa, in regards to your pilot study, was 

the observer a certified observer. 

Response 

Melissa Sanderson 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s 

Association, USA

The majority of the observers on both pilots 

were certified federal observers. I can get 

the numbers for you later. There were a 

handful of trips where we had some of our 

data technicians for our cooperative research 

programs doing some of that. 

 

I didn’t mention it in the presentation here, 

but we were doing some hook by hook 

species identification. So the observer 

literally was standing there with a tape 

recorder saying what they were seeing 

coming over the rail and that was all they 

were looking at. Those were some of our inhouse data collectors. 

Comment 

Jerry Cygler 

East West Technical Services 

USA 

Also, was your pilot study accepted by the 

science community? 

Comment 

Melissa Sanderson 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s 

Association 

USA 

The original pilot with the hook vessels was 

a collaborative effort with the science center 

and the observer program. I would leave 

that to Amy Van Atten to answer whether or 

not they’ve found value in our pilots. 

Question/Comment 

Jerry Cygler 

East West Technical Services 

USA 

Currently, electronic monitoring and 

electronic data processing is in its early 

development stages. This is what we had 

with computers 20 years ago, then we had 

hackers and those kinds of associated 

problems. Tampering is not only cutting 

wires on a monitoring camera, but could be 

more serious. This same issue could apply in 

EM. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 256
So here if we’re going to widely use that 

type of equipment, is there a possibility of 

some kind of a really bigger problem with 

the viruses, hackers and problems with the 

data? 

Comment 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada

I really think that the discussion about 

electronic monitoring often gets overly 

focused on just the technical aspects (e.g., 

can the cameras see this? can the sensors 

detect that?). 

I see this in a slightly broader perspective. 

It’s really the operational context that the 

technology is being employed. I think that 

that speaks to some of the detail in terms of 

the application of the technology. Issues 

include: service delivery - How are these 

programs are actually made available?; and 

standards - What are the standards for the 

technology and program delivery. These 

operational issues are really important and 

we only have a small number of live 

operational projects that we can look at to 

start to think about how this needs to work. 

Question/ Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

This question is for Martin. I attended your 

EM workshop in Seattle and it was very well 

presented. I read Howard’s report and 

you’re right. That is very good reading 

outlining the use of EM in some U.S. 

fisheries and Canadian fisheries, but one of 

the sections in your workshop you 

highlighted it relating to regulatory efforts, 

I’m wondering are there any regulatory 

efforts underway to manage EM system use 

and where? 

Response 

Martin Loefflad 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

I can only speak to within Alaska though 

because I’m not familiar with the rest of the 

country. Within Alaska we do have one 

operational video system that is regulated 

and that is a system that is in place for a 

compliance function. It’s operating on 

several vessels right now. There are 

regulations which established that 

mechanism. That was the first regulatory 

effort that was taken in our region to deal 

with video and EM. 

Now we’re looking to the future of that. So 

we’re really wrestling and working with the 

industry as we’re looking at the project that 

Julie reported on as to where do we go from 

here with it. The initial framework that we 

outlined in regulations I think was a first 

stab at it. Now we need to evolve and look a 

little bit more to the future as this has 

potential to expand. 

So the regulations we have out there we 

would say are good, but they’re not fully 

fine tuned yet. So we have some work to 

do. 

Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

Are those regulations specific for a fishery 

and do you see this being a template for 

other regions to follow on? 

Response 

Martin Loefflad 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

At this juncture I’d say we need a little bit 

more experience. So we’re really in the 

discussion phase right now. How do we 

structure regulations in the future? I 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 257
wouldn’t say that we have a template for 

others to follow at this point in time. 

Question/ Comment 

Graeme Parkes 

MRAG Ltd. 

United Kingdom 

I have a technical question, to anybody on 

the panel. It was about the number of frames 

per second that are recorded. I believe, I 

saw it was ten frames per second. I don’t 

know if that’s a standard, whether that’s 

been determined as what’s necessary to see 

what you need to see or whether there is 

actually a hardware constraint on that as a 

limit and whether if there were more frames 

per second it would be beneficial or if it’s 

other sorts of issues like camera placement 

and so on that really control how effective 

the image analysis is. 

Response 

Morgan Dyas 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada

Regarding the frames per second, we 

typically use five frames per second because 

we found that best for long line. It’s a 

balance that you have to find between what 

kind of detail you need and how much space 

you’re going to use on hard drives by 

collecting more frames per second. 

Response 

Julie Bonney 

Alaska Groundfish Databank 

USA

Just to follow on, I know for our project we 

used I think it was either two or four frames 

per second for the discard monitoring 

application for full retention, but then in 

terms of the discard sheet where you’re 

actually trying to measure each halibut, it 

was up to eight. It comes down to what 

you’re trying to accomplish. We were 

fortunate in terms of the data storage 

because we switched out the hard drives at 

the end of each trip so we didn’t have a 

storage problem. 

Comment 

Graeme Parkes 

MRAG Ltd. 

United Kingdom 

So is it fair to say that then it’s essentially 

not a constraint? You would just set it to 

whatever you need it to be in order to 

achieve your aims? 

Response 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada

Technology is moving quite a bit and how 

I’d answer that three or four years ago is 

different than now. The cost of hard drives 

– the cost per gigabyte - is a lot less than it 

was and is going to continue so data storage 

will become continually more and more 

affordable and, at the same time, processing 

capabilities will also improve, yielding 

higher frame rates. 

Right now we distribute about 30 frames per 

second across 4 cameras. So that’s the 

balancing act that you’re playing, using 

higher frame rates on cameras with more 

activity and lower rates on other cameras. 

Internet Protocol (IP) streaming cameras are 

coming into the marketplace and when the 

prices become affordable, the image 

processing bottleneck will not exist (all 

cameras could deliver 30 fps). It then comes 

back to the simple question of how much 

data storage do you want to use for the 

cameras that you’re using. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 258
Comment 

Bob Stanley 

Australian Fisheries Management Authority 

Australia

 

It’s not so much a question directed to the 

panel, but more a comment and observation 

aimed at some of the questions that were 

raised earlier. 

Firstly, someone mentioned rare events and 

threatened and endangered species. We 

played in this space back in ’05. We found 

that we were looking at an exercise of a 

camera replacing an observer. When there 

was a rare event it really was a behavior 

modifier of the crew and they immediately 

notified us that an event had happened. 

The end equation is the amount of video we 

had to review to see and understand these 

events became much smaller. So the actual 

costs are quite significant in the video 

analysis area. If you’ve got a behavior 

modifier you’re immediately reducing that 

cost if you have a significant element of 

faith that the people are compliant. We had 

that faith. 

The other thing is that we found that having 

given people a taste of an alternative to 

observers; we found our industry very, very 

supportive to the point where they’re 

twisting our arms – we want it now! We’re 

rather reluctant and we want to be very 

careful in our data streams and how we 

assemble them and how we integrate them. 

I think with time you’ll see changes in the 

attitude of industry and they can be positive. 

Lastly, some people went to the area of costs 

of these things for various types of fishing 

operations. We commissioned a cost benefit 

study over seven different fishery types and 

tried to project what our costs for EM 

systems would be. That study’s available 

online at our web site. One of my 

observations from that study is if you have a 

fleet that’s working year round in their 

fishing operations you will very possibly see 

benefits in EM supplementing observer 

work. If however you have a very short 

window of fleet operation we found that 

there were no significant differences in the 

costs. That was particularly drawn out in 

our shark gill net fleet where half of the fleet 

works all year and then the other half of the 

fleet moved out of the rock lobster industry 

and did some short term sharking. No 

advantages for the second sector; big 

advantages for the first. 

Question/ Comment 

Kelle Moreau 

Institute of Fisheries Research 

Belgium 

We heard a lot about technical and practical 

restrictions or things that need fine tuning in 

the future in terms of EM. Suppose in some 

future we would live in an ideal EM world 

where all these problems have been solved, 

do you think that it’s worth investing or 

investing more in species identification 

software? 

Response 

Martin Loefflad 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

 

I’m certainly not an expert in the area, but at 

the workshop we held there was a 

presentation by a European gentleman from 

Scantrol, a company that has been 

developing species identification software. 

From my perspective, I think a couple years 

ago it was not so good, but it has continued 

to develop and I think it has great potential 

for the future as a tool worth watching and 

worth putting some time and effort into 

developing. 

Comment 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada

I would just say to that question that often 

when you’re implementing the technology 

you’re looking at trying to do it in a way that 

minimally interrupts the normal operations 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 259
of fishing vessels. So if you happen to 

notice the imagery that was given in 

presentations, you don’t get the ideal classic 

view that an analytical software tool might 

need. So moving in the direction that you’re 

suggesting I think is also moving in the 

direction of industry finding a way to 

accommodate that more and more. I think 

it’s definitely possible, but there are a 

number of issues to resolve to make the 

technology suitable. 

Comment 

Martin Loefflad 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

Howard, if I could just clarify my points I 

believe Scantrol, was looking at individual 

fish going across a device on a conveyor belt 

where they’re laid out flat as opposed to a 

hook and line vessel, where you have a 

wiggling fish. 

Question/ Comment 

Eric Brazer 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s 

Association 

USA 

As a manager of the two existing sectors in 

New England, I first wanted to thank the 

panel. This was a very, very informative 

session and it’s very interesting and exciting 

to hear about the other EM work that’s 

happening throughout the world. 

My question is directed towards Martin. As 

my colleague on the panel had mentioned, 

we’ve moved forward with a couple of pilot 

projects in the groundfish fishery in New 

England that have been viewed as 

successful. There have been some other 

pilot projects in New England that have 

been completely unsuccessful. However, it 

seems like this tool is gaining a foothold in 

the region as a viable option for managing 

an output controlled fishery. 

You had alluded to a couple of fisheries that 

are actually using electronic monitoring and 

I was hoping you could briefly address any 

hurdles, either federal or regional obstacles 

that have come up in that discussion and 

how those were overcome to turn a pilot 

project into a fully operational tool. 

Response 

Martin Loefflad

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

The major operational implementation of 

this I believe is in the British Columbia long 

line fishery. The operational program in 

Alaska is one which is for a specific 

objective. It is one which is more of a 

compliance function where we have videos 

installed on some vessels which are acting 

as another set of eyes for an observer 

looking at an area that they cannot see when 

they’re taking samples. So that’s a fairly 

simple application in the sense that we are 

not actually taking that video imagery and 

then analyzing it later. We are using it as 

another set of eyes and we have the ability 

to obtain that video if a problem is reported 

and detected, of which case we’ve had none 

so far. 

So kind of a simple operation to start with, 

but we have found operationally that a 

couple of growing pains as we’ve started a 

couple of failures that occurred, but now 

we’re seeing it pretty darn stable. It’s out 

there. It’s running today. It’s working. We 

have people on boats today as we speak 

looking at video imagery of areas that they 

cannot see. 

Comment/ Response 

Howard McElderry 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Canada 

 

Another example that’s probably worth 

mentioning is the shore based Hake fishery 

in Washington and Oregon. Janelle 

Majewski can probably speak more about it, 

but this is an EFP regulated fishery. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 260
So I think what you talked about was a 

fishery that is under regulations where it’s 

stipulated in the regulations. The Oregon 

shore based fishery is stipulated through an 

EFP process. So in the U.S., those are the 

examples to look at and think about in terms 

of trying to go from here to there. 

Question/ Comment 

Gordon Gislason 

GS Gislason Associates, Ltd. 

Canada 

I just have a comment follow-up to what 

Bob Stanley’s comment. I was the person 

who did the cost benefit analysis in 

Australia. What was interesting from my 

point of view is we put together cost drivers 

for both observer programs and EM 

programs. So the actual costs are very 

fishery specific and monitoring objective 

specific. 

Some of the cost drivers are days at sea, 

days fishing, number of hours per day that a 

fishing event occurs, the costs of EM if you 

only have the gear in the water six hours a 

day versus 16 hours a day vary. Also in 

terms of the monitoring objective, it’s true 

that if you’re interested in threatened 

endangered protected species you have to 

review more of the film, but you can review 

that film at a much faster speed, especially if 

you’re worried about interactions of say 

large marine mammals only. 

So this part of the process is actually getting 

a snapshot of what your fishery looks like, 

what your main monitoring objectives are 

like and what the key cost drivers are. 

That’s what was done in the Australia 

context. As Bob said, I would encourage 

people interested in the actual costing 

exercise to review the AFMA document 

which is online. 

Question/ Comment 

Craig Faunce 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I wanted to comment that most EM utility 

seems to be conducted during the daylight 

hours. EM certainly has the great potential 

for 24 hour utilization because unlike and 

observer id doesn’t have to sleep. I was 

wondering if the panel could just comment 

on if anyone knows of any comparisons 

between day or night utility of EM, what it’s 

good for in those two different scenarios 

because it’s not really a day/night in 

northern latitudes. Darkness in winter 

occurs most hours unlike most of the studies 

that have been conducted primarily during 

light. 

Response 

Morgan Dyas 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

USA

Day/night usually come down to lighting 

issues. Typically, if we have good lighting 

we can see the activity. I don’t know of any 

comparison between day and night EM 

analysis, but we do analyze night time hook 

and line fishing. As long as the lighting’s 

good it’s comparable to the daytime. 

Response 

Julie Bonney 

Alaska Groundfish Databank 

USA

 

I’d just note that that was something we 

looked at in phase one and there’s actually 

an analysis that looks at the difference 

between day and night video and there was 

no difference. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 261
Question/ Comment 

Oscar Guzman 

Institute for Fisheries Development 

Chile 

Most presentations were related to long line 

monitoring. How efficient could it be the 

EM to monitor discards on bottom trawlers? 

Response 

Julie Bonney 

Alaska Groundfish Databank 

USA

The trawl industry that I work for 

participates in four different target fisheries. 

One is flat fish bottom trawling, trawling for 

rockfish (bottom and pelagic), cod trawling 

and Pollock trawling. The only application 

that I see for trawling for EM is full 

retention requirements. Except for in the 

one example that I gave where you’re 

monitoring one species and you can quantify 

that species as it’s discarded, in a multispecies environment I don’t think there’s 

any way that you could come up with any 

kind of metric for what was discarded at sea.

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 262
Closing Session 

Moderator: Dennis Hansford, National Marine Fisheries Service, USA 

Featured Closing Remarks 

Dennis Hansford – NOAA Fisheries Service, USA 

Keith Davis – APO member and Observer, USA 

Lisa Borges – European Commission, Belgium 

Steve Kennelly – NSW Department of Primary Industries, Australia 

Ernesto Altamirano –Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, USA 

Closing Remarks 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

Good afternoon, and welcome to our concluding session. Wow. What a week. You should be 

proud of all you’ve accomplished this week. We had four full days of interacting with each other, 

sharing information, realizing our shared interests, respectfully disagreeing, agreeing to disagree, 

and meeting colleagues from the 37 countries represented here. It’s been quite a week. 

 

One of my tasks is to pass along the chairmanship and duties of host. I am pleased to announce 

that we have more than one option for host of the next IFOMC. Your attendance here has 

signaled your willingness to come again to the 7th IFOMC. By that time, we’ll know whether it’s 

going to be in Africa, 

Europe or South America. 

We’ll work closely with 

the countries that are 

looking to host the next 

conference as they 

prepare proposals. 

Dennis Hansford 

6th IFOMC Chair Closing Remarks 

USA

This week we’ve gone 

from data extrapolation to 

safety training to Moving 

Sushi. I look forward to 

seeing the final Moving 

Sushi video documentary. 

Thanks to Michael 

Markovina and Linda 

Schoenkecht for their 

wonderful presentation. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 263
We heard and discussed different approaches to data use, accessibility, and enforcement. We saw 

how the importance of support for observers as they are on the front lines collecting fisheries 

information, how important it is to make sure there are incentives for them to continue doing 

what they’re doing, and how important it is to insure that they are adequately trained for the 

rigors of sea life and for situations that can be life threatening – can be life taking. 

We are all on the same sheet of music when it comes to collaboration, inclusiveness. We heard 

time and time again how important it is to have input from the managers, from the stakeholders, 

industry, how everyone brings something important to the table. It cannot be stated enough how 

coming together in forums like this play a critical role in effecting change. 

The communication and interactions initiated here will continue, even after the conference wraps 

up and we’ve headed our separate ways. I look forward to seeing many of you at the next 

conference. Right now, we’re going to hear summaries from some of our pre-conference events 

and concurrent session. 

We’ll start with Keith Davis, who chaired our Observer Professionalism Working Group 

(OPWG). I can’t say enough about Keith and the boundless energy and dedication to his working 

group, as well as his affiliation with the Association of Professional Observers. He exemplifies 

all of what I admire and try to promote in my role working with the National Observer Program 

in trying to ensure observers that we share their best interests. We’re told that observers are not 

our employees and are not really our concern, but I disagree with that. I will continue to support 

Keith and what he does. 

An Observer’s Perspective 

Keith Davis 

Observer and Association for Professional Observers Board Member 

Thanks a lot, Dennis. I just want to say right off, I think this has been a great conference. I don’t 

know the numbers of observers in attendance here as comparison to last conference, but I think 

the observer involvement and activities for observers have increased, and I really applaud 

Dennis’s efforts in this and his leadership. 

Regarding my role in this conference, I just want to talk about the working groups in general and 

the utility that they serve in this conference system. We started them back right before the last 

conference in 2006 and got the safety training and the professionalism working groups going. 

Working groups can provide outputs beyond what the conference can do as far as working 

beyond the conference and continuing these international cooperative and harmonization efforts. 

I think they serve a great utility, and I would like to see other working groups come from this 

conference, for example, observer data and maybe tuna transshipment observer program working 

group, as well. As far as the OPWG is concerned, I would like to introduce those members in 

attendance: Sara Wetmore, Bob Stanley, Reuben Beazley, Amy Van Atten, Dawn Golden, Larry 

Beerkircher and Ebol Rojas. Also, we had Chris Heinecken and Jon McVeigh here as well, and 

we have a total of twenty in our group. Many were unable to attend, but they still are an integral 

part of what we do. 

Our workshop at this conference was very successful as far as what we set out to do. We tried to 

build off of what we had started at the last conference, which was founded in the principles of the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 264
Observer Bill of Rights started in 2000. We highlighted key topics and conducted focused 

interviews off on those issues. Now we are building some detail into those topics through further 

interviews. 

Thirty five people signed up to our workshop (concurrent session held Wednesday morning), 

though around 50 came into the session. We completed about 40 interviews, yesterday, and they 

have continued after the workshop. I have a couple to complete later on today, and other OPWG 

members are also trying to complete some more, too. If you would like to contribute, get in touch 

with us, and check out our webview on the APO website, www.apo-observers.org/ifomc/opwg , 

and you can find more information about the project there. We’re going to summarize the 

workshop and kind of just detail our outlook for the products that can come from this conference. 

The major products that we’d like to see come from the workshop are a full report on the details 

of over 80 interviews we’ve conducted – we conducted 40 interviews last February and another 

40 here – and a summation with our recommendations stemming from what we’ve learned. 

That’s probably going to be a pretty bulky 

document, but we’d also like to produce a short 

pamphlet, as well. Our vision for the pamphlet is to 

print up a hardcopy form – maybe like a tri-fold 

pamphlet translated into several languages – that’s 

sent out to every known observer program 

internationally. I hope we can get all of this 

accomplished in a year, but that’s very ambitious. 

One reason it’s so ambitious is because the 

interviews are recorded and we have to work at 

transcribing all these interviews, which is going to 

take quite a deal of time and effort. 

The working group would really like to thank the 

IFOMC steering committee and conference 

organizers for all their work. Also, we thank 

Rebecca Lent and Azure Westwood whom also 

helped with French translations for two interviews 

(delegates from Senegal and Morocco.) Also, thanks 

to two observer volunteers who helped with the 

workshop – Mary Powers and Andy Ashley. They 

helped with orienting people, signing them in, and 

scheduling interviews. Thank you for your great help. 

Keith Davis 

Observer and Association for Professional 

Observers Board Member 

USA 

One other thing I’ve been involved in recently is the Tuna Transshipment Observer Program 

(TTOP) meeting. The main goals of the meetings (held before the conference sessions on 

Wednesday and Thursday) were to cooperate and organize a collective working knowledge 

between interested stakeholders amongst the different tuna transshipment programs worldwide. 

We could have used a half-day session to cover all that. 

There are five regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) that manage the worldwide 

high sea stocks of tuna. We’re trying to at least to start working with all the stakeholders, 

including observers, contractors and the RFMO representatives and working on harmonizing 

practices. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 265
Primarily, we have the same or similar objectives in each region, and pretty much it’s just one 

observer program – the first worldwide observer program. Attending these meetings were Brian 

Belay; USA’s Joe Arceneaux, of Pacific Islands; Dawn Golden; John Kelly, Pacific Islands; Chris 

Heinecken, Capfish, South Africa; Bob Trumble, MRAG Americas; and Ebol Rojas, observer for 

ICCAT and the newly formed Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC); and Mary Powers who’s 

recently trained for IATTC in the Pacific. She has not yet gone out, but she’s going out soon 

hopefully. Also attending were Teresa Turk, Kim Blankenbecker, the US ICCAT 

representatives; Rebecca Lent; Tom Nishida, IOTC representative in Japan; Evan Casey, 

observer; Graham Parkes, MRAG; and Ernesto Altamirano, IATTC; and myself. 

The discussions were very good. We just started to outline some principles that we can actually 

harmonize on across programs like species identification (ID), and at least getting the frozen fish 

– the popsicles ID views for that, and principles like that. We’re trying to get together a single 

observer training manual, though we’ll have to have addendums for each of the RFMOs. 

We began to identify best practices for things such as estimating weights from length to weight 

relationship, formula and all that. So I want to move on from this. Well, I mean, it’s hard to 

summarize everything. But I think it’s just a start right now. We have some work to do. I’d like 

to see the TTOP working group established, so we can continue working after the conference and 

cooperate internationally on this. 

So I’m going to show a short little video here of tuna transshipment. This video shows a 

Taiwanese vessel with 65 people on board, though accommodations were for only 25. They were 

transporting other crew members on there way to fishing vessels, long line fishing vessels that are 

out there. These vessels stay out at sea for one and a half to two years. The transshipment 

vessels are providing them with crew members, food, fuel, everything – magazines, whatever. 

You can see, it can be pretty difficult to ID those frozen fish when they’re swinging by like that, 

and especially hard to estimate their weight. So you’ve got some swordfish in there and big 

yellowfin. The video shows them packing the fish. This shows the vessel near the end of the trip. 

The hold’s just about full. If you would like a copy of this movie, just contact me – 

lblegend@yahoo.com. 

Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Thank you, Keith. That’s just an example of his dedication and why I fully support what he does, 

not only regarding observers, but also the resource and the management and monitoring side of 

things. Next, Lisa Borges will report on the Data Extrapolation Workshop. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 266
Data Extrapolation Workshop Summary and Closing remarks

Lisa Borges 

European Commission 

I should say that I am expressing my opinions, and they may not represent the opinions and the 

positions of the European Commission. 

The workshop was initiated, I suppose, because there was a need. There was a lot of interest 

from the people at the conference to talk about data. I came forward to say, “Okay, I can do 

that,” because I chaired the ICES workshop on the same issues. 

Vicki Cornish of the Ocean Conservancy was my co-chair for the workshop. I thought we should 

kind of divide the discussion to address two types of data – common occurrences or rare 

occurrences. 

A common occurrence would involve the species that are usually discarded, those you see a lot 

on common haul – on every haul – and are usually fish and crustaceans. And then there’s the 

rare occurrence which are species that are accidentally caught in a haul. They are rare so they 

don’t show up as much. In fact, the data includes a lot of zeroes. These are usually protected 

species – bycaught species. 

I divided the workshop on those two subjects. I gave a presentation on the first part of it about 

the common occurrence. I asked Kimberly (Murray, NOAA, NEFSC; Woods Hole, MA, USA) 

to do one about protected species and the issues associated to estimating those. 

My talk was about what the ICES Discard Raising Procedures Workshop that we did. By 

“raising,” we mean extrapolation, although apparently statistically that is not the same. 

ICES met for a week in San Sebastian, in Spain. We talked about methods and our problems of 

estimating. We put our data together and we analyzed our data together. We concluded (the 

report is available through ICES) that there’s a systematic method to assess, compare, and choose 

a raising method. We called it the raising procedure key. 

I don’t want to go into the discussion of what the raising procedure key, but there is a way of 

actually going from the data you have to actually having results and data extrapolated to the 

population. 

Kimberly talked about protected species estimation (bycatch estimation in the USA). She talked 

about the data and the problems associated with the data. Usually for rare occurrence, of course, 

you have a lot of zeroes in the data. You need to talk about nested data because the sampling is 

nested and it gives problems within estimation methods. You need to think about where you’re 

sampling and what unit of sampling you are using. 

She also talked about estimation techniques, different models that she used, and she compared the 

results of those models. She talked about the problems, what she calls analytical issues, which 

are the assumptions of the models and how sometimes the data does not allow you to follow those 

assumptions. Finally, she talked about the quality of the data and the quality of the data at a 

population level. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 267
At the end of the workshop we realized that regardless if you have a rare occurrence or a common 

occurrence, the issues in your data are the same. This is my take of what the workshop discussed 

or concluded – that there are definitely data quality issues, and those can be associated with bias 

so you are not sampling what you want to sample or what you want to discover. Precision is the 

other variable. 

These data quality bias/precision issues are associated to representatives of your sample. What I 

mean by this, for example is a voluntary program may not result in random data. Many of the 

methods you use have an assumption of random sampling, which creates a problem. 

You also have a problem with enforcement. You can have an observer onboard, and the vessel 

operators change their behavior, so you have a sample that is biased to the population you are 

sampling. You can also have problems, for example, if you sample vessels that are a lot bigger 

than your fleet, and, therefore, you’re extrapolating for a behavior or a representative of your 

sample that is not what you actually want to sample. 

Of course, quality comes up again and again, right? Much of the commercial data given by 

industry can be misreported. It can be under-, over-reported, or misreported by vessels, by area, 

by species. All these issues exist in the data itself. Also, you may not have the data that you need 

to raise your data to the fishery itself. 

You can imagine that if you have, for example, a pelagic fishery and you don’t have the landings, 

you don’t have a good estimator of your landings, you can’t use effort because there is no 

relationship between the variables, and you are stuck. You have all this sampling and you can’t 

actually get the results you wanted as your initial objective was to get an estimation of discard. 

Of course there’s a common issue to all of this, which is associated to sampling. Your sampling 

unit could be anything. You could consider it as being on a trip level or a haul level. There are 

issues about being random or not, and how you estimate your data associated to that choice. 

Sometimes you might not have that choice if in every haul or set the fisherman changes the gear. 

It’s a very different discard pattern and I would consider that a different fishery. 

So we talked about all these issues. Then we realized that there are a lot of models you can use, 

both in rare occurrence and common occurrence. Now the first model, of course, to raise your 

data is a ratio estimator. You have a regression. You say that the landings of this species are 

compared to the discard. If you have the landings of the population, you just multiply and that’s 

it – very simple. 

Now, there are problems associated with that, particularly when your sampling is biased. You 

can use a lot of the statistical models available there. GLMs, GAMs, mixed- models – all of them 

have assumptions about data being nested, being independent. Zero-inflated models which you 

heard about – but all these models have basically to us two really big assumptions. One, which is 

independence and if you’re sampling – you might actually have data that’s not independent 

because it’s nested. 

Discard data is always over dispersed, and those assumptions are violated much of the time, and 

you need to account for that. I can say this now because I’m now a manager and I’m no longer a 

statistician or a biologist: you can actually break the assumptions of your model, no problem, but 

you have to check. There are levels of violation of assumptions and the results will either be bias 

or not. However, you can test for bias in a small violation. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 268
We concluded also that models are time consuming. They’re time intensive. It takes a lot of 

work to estimate the data, and you take a lot of time to get your model to put your data together, 

to your variables. And you might not have time for that if you’re doing stock assessment 

annually and you need to produce your data. 

Like Kimberly pointed out, if you spend your time once, you have all these complicated models, 

and then you can actually use it, and you don’t need to do this model every year. This gives you 

the opportunity to estimate data outside your area, so you might not have a one year and you 

might use the model to estimate that, so that’s the potential of it. 

I’m using ICES and the work we did for this raising – discard raising procedure key. I wanted to 

highlight not the key itself and the questions it makes, but the process or where it goes. This is 

one of the conclusions of the workshop – check your data. Check if your log books are 

misreported. Check if you are sampling what you should be sampling. Check if your observers 

are only choosing the best boats, or if your fishermen are actually changing their behavior. 

It is important to check these things and you need to check your data. Then use a lot of methods 

and compare the results. You need to compare the results because some of the models might not 

be okay. Much of our experience at least of swapping around with models is that you learn a lot 

about your data and about issues you might not realize. As an example, when I worked with the 

data it was obvious if you have misreporting in one of your data. If you extrapolate with effort 

and you extrapolate with landings and you end up with something that is very different, someone 

is misreporting. 

You can actually then discover the quality of the data by comparing results. So, again, compare 

your results. Finally, it’s important to improve your sampling scheme by analyzing your data. 

Now I know everybody says how to put together a sampling program – how do you build a 

sampling program to get your best data? And I’m not saying here how to put together your 

sampling program. 

What I’m saying is when you analyze your data, you have very useful information in how you 

can improve your sampling to improve the data quality. When I talk about this, it’s about 

targeting your sampling to where your variability is that what you might not have realized before 

you start your program. 

For example, there is variability in your hauls. I have a colleague who published a paper saying 

that you should sample more times in one haul and not sample a lot of hauls because– there’s not 

a lot of variability in hauls. There’s a variability in the sampling itself. 

Issues like this you should target. You need to go back and say, “Okay, I have a different fishery 

than I thought I was sampling.” So go back and try to sample the boats. The three messages 

really are check your data, compare the results, and improve your sampling. 

I just want to thank two people whom I couldn’t do it without. Vicki Cornish took the notes for 

the workshop. I want to thank Kimberly Murray for coming up and being able to give the talk 

when I gave her very short notice. 

In regards to the workshop report, one of the things we want to include is a bibliographic search 

of all the papers identifying the issues and answers related to the data problems. Thank you. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 269
Comment

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

Thank you, Lisa. All right, now what I would like to do is get an overview from one of our 

moderators and one of our past hosts. Steve Kennelly hosted our conference in Sydney, 

Australia. Much of what he’s done I’ve incorporated, as well as what Howard did during the 5th

conference in Victoria. I’ve asked him to give us his take-away points from our week of 

presentations. 

A Conference Overview 

Steve Kennelly 

NSW Department of Primary Industries 

This “wrap-up” of this week’s conference is focused around three overall themes: “Where we 

were”; Where we are”; and “Where to next”. 

Where we were 

We live on a blue planet, dominated by water. Our ancestors came from this water hundreds of 

millions of years ago and, for the past 90,000 years, we have exploited the world’s oceans, seas, 

rivers and lakes for its seafood. From very humble beginnings, using harpoons and spears to 

catch fish, we have developed our fishing technologies into extremely efficient forms, 

culminating in factory trawlers, capable of harvesting huge quantities of fish in relatively short 

periods of time. In recent centuries we have identified that the seas of the world are not 

inexhaustible but are able to be over-fished using our new technologies; this has led to major 

developments in how we manage our exploitation of the oceans’ resources. 

Crucial to this management is our ability to observe, identify and monitor what occurs in the 

oceans and our exploitation of them. These factors shape the goals of our observer and 

monitoring programs. The latest developments in these programs are what we’ve discussed and 

learned about this week. 

Our Scientific Basis

A man named William Whewell, the master of Trinity College in Cambridge University about 

180 years ago, is credited with developing the concept of the Hypothetico-Deductivo, or the 

Scientific Method (see below). This method describes how good science should proceed. It starts 

with observations, from which we develop explanatory models, and then hypotheses are 

generated from these models. These hypotheses are next turned into null hypotheses which can 

be tested unambiguously. From these tests, we obtain more observations which inform us about 

whether we should retain or reject the null hypothesis (and so reject or retain, respectively, the 

original hypothesis and model). If the latter case occurs (and we reject the null hypothesis) then 

we confirm that our original hypothesis and model were correct and we have established a new 

scientific conclusion. If the former case occurs (and our test shows that the null hypothesis was 

correct), we reject the original hypothesis and its model, but we do so armed with new 

observations which allows us to begin the whole process again. Observations clearly form a 

critical part of this Scientific Method, which underpins all good scientific endeavors. So, 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 270
whenever anyone says that observer programs or fisheries monitoring programs are not 

necessarily scientific, they are absolutely, totally wrong. Observer programs are actually at the 

crux of sound, empirical, scientific investigation. 

HYPOTHESIS

OBSERVATIONS

MODEL

NULL HYPOTHESIS

TEST OR EXPERIMENT

Retain Null 

Hypothesis 

Reject Null 

Hypothesis 

Support

hypothesis

Refine Model 

This Conference Series

In fisheries science, these observations that are critical to the Scientific Method are what we do 

and what we meet to discuss every 2 years. That is, our scientific field has reached a point where 

we regularly gather to examine what we are doing and learn from each other so we can improve 

our work. This series of conferences began in Seattle 11 years ago. Nine years ago, we went to 

St. John’s, Newfoundland. Seven years ago we went to New Orleans. Then we went to Sydney, 

Australia, and then to Victoria, British Columbia. And now we are here in Portland. 

Over the last six conferences and 11 years, our field of fisheries observer and monitoring work 

has expanded and grown enormously throughout the world, and in each of the sequential periods 

between conferences, there has clearly been an increase in the quality, diversity, scale and 

sophistication of such programs. This week we saw evidence of these expansions to a greater 

extent than we have seen at previous conferences. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 271
Where we are 

At this conference, we have seen that the field of observer and monitoring programs has grown 

substantially in the number of countries involved. From South America to Sierra Leone to Sri 

Lanka; from Namibia to Norway to New Zealand; from Alaska to Africa to Australia; from 

Canada to Cameroon; from the largest fisheries in the world (we heard about the Peruvian 

anchovy fishery) to some of the smallest artisanal fisheries in Africa; we have discussed all sorts 

of programs from all over the planet. 

We have also looked at some of the world’s richest fisheries (with some of the world’s richest 

fishers) to some of the poorest fisheries whose fishers go fishing every day just to catch enough to 

eat. And we also heard about statistics that 50 percent of the seafood harvested in the world is 

consumed that day by the people who caught it, and that 50 percent of people involved in the 

industry are women – a surprise to many. 

This week we learned about the major increases over the last few years in the sophistication of 

the programs occurring in many places. For example, we heard about the very staged and 

scientific approach being used in some African countries like Namibia and Cameroon as they 

begin to roll out their observer programs. 

We also heard about the development of truly global observer programs, like programs to 

quantify tuna trans-shipments at sea, and methods to try to increase the capacity of observers via 

observer exchanges between programs and even between vessels at sea. 

We also heard about the devastating effects that war and tsunamis can have on the operation of 

monitoring programs - for example, the incredible challenges facing Sri Lanka whose entire 

fishing sector was ruined by a tsunami, and how they are trying to monitor their fisheries in the 

face of such devastation. 

We also had several fishermen at this conference. At any fisheries conference in the world, the 

smallest group of people represented are often the fishermen. This week we were able to harness 

the talents of quite a few fishermen to the point where we were able to have a full session devoted 

to observer and monitoring programs from the perspective of fishermen – a very significant 

achievement for the organizers. 

But the key to this series of observer conferences are the observers. They are, as we heard in the 

opening keynote speech of the conference, the eyes and the ears of fisheries management and 

fisheries science. We heard about life as an observer. We heard about the toilets and we heard 

about sleeping and working in terrible conditions. This allowed many to get a feel for what it is 

really like to be an observer. 

As in previous conferences, we had a very significant focus on observer safety at this conference. 

The catchphrase was “Go Safe or Go Home”. As was the case at the previous conference, John 

LaFargue, Mike Tork, and the people who did all the safety presentations and drills, saved lives 

this week. Whilst we can’t actually quantify how many people they saved between the last 

conference and this one, I guarantee that people will not die as a result of the fantastic work these 

people did here this week. People will be safer for the experience of having come to this 

conference, and we all should appreciate just how important their contribution has been. We also 

heard about the importance of staying clean – and we learned about many tips on how to achieve 

this to stop infections etc. – especially on problematic vessels. And we heard about some 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 272
amazing statistics on sunken vessels which showed that many fatalities actually occur when one 

is actually off watch – a very sobering point to bear in mind. 

We had significant sessions on how one uses the information obtained from observer programs. 

This was a significant and key focus of this conference, and we learned about how one’s program 

design is absolutely critical. But another thought came from a Louis Pasteur quote, “that if you 

hit the target every time then the target is too close”. That is, it is important and somewhat 

sobering to remember that, when we’re designing programs, not to be overly critical about 

achieving 100 percent coverage and making precision limits miniscule. If one’s precision is that 

small, you should probably alter your focus to increase the value you get for the money and 

resources expended. 

We discussed the traditional uses of observer and monitoring data – ie their use in quantifying 

charismatic and not-so-charismatic bycatch and discards, and their use in stock assessments. But 

we also talked about more intricate ways of using observer data - and covered many things in 

Lisa Borges’ and Kimberly Murray’s work in the Data Extrapolation workshop. A key item to 

arise from such discussions was how vital standardization and extrapolation are. But we also 

learned about another “-ation” - “inspiration” with a key example coming on the first day when 

Michael Zeljan Markovina and Linda Schonknecht provided an inspiring and passionate 

description of their expedition around the planet describing a variety of success stories in fisheries 

sustainability – many from developing countries. One of the key messages this week came from 

them: “Being inspired about the positive allows us to tackle the negative with inspired minds”. 

The use of observer data in fisheries compliance has been discussed at previous conferences, but 

here this discussion took on a level of sophistication that we hadn’t seen before. We also looked 

at how observer data and its discard information can be used to contribute to the process of 

developing share managed fisheries. We touched upon eco-labeling, and had a presentation from 

the Marine Stewardship Council. This is an important area for practitioners of observer programs 

so we can see how the various eco-labeling organizations around the world operate and how 

observer data can be used by those groups. 

We also had a very significant section on the law and the many ways that legislation interacts 

with observer and monitoring programs and observers. The lawyers we heard from were very 

senior people in their field who provided some of the clearest and most easy-to-understand 

presentations about this subject, allowing many of us to really appreciate, for the first time, this 

very complex but crucial area. 

We heard a lot about the latest technological developments in observer and monitoring programs, 

including new work on self-reporting by fishers and how we can use that information to 

supplement and improve observer data and monitoring information. A very significant series of 

developments were discussed this week concerning electronic monitoring. Six conferences ago, 

the thought of putting cameras on boats to monitor fisheries would not have even been mentioned 

- yet now we are discussing very sophisticated ways of using such technology as a mainstream 

tool in several fisheries. 

We also heard from Environmental Non-Government Organizations. We had an entire panel 

session devoted to this area who described their issues and how they can use observer data and 

contribute to the success of observer and monitoring programs through their lobbying efforts 

throughout the world. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 273
Where to next? 

One of the features of this conference series is the final session where we encourage a selfflagellation exercise and discuss what we did, how we did better, what we did worse and how we 

might improve things for the next conference. There has been six conferences now and, I believe 

we are at a point where we can use this number of experiences to provide a reasonably objective 

measure of the utility and value of these conferences. That is, let us consider our 6 conferences as 

a data set of six replicates through a time series. 

In the past six conferences, we’ve seen a progressive increase in the quality and sophistication of 

observer programs in more and more countries, in more and more fisheries, by more and more 

people, with better and better safety features, using better and more sophisticated techniques to 

analyse and interpret the data gathered. And such progressive improvements have been discussed 

and described in the proceedings from the previous conferences. The question is, would all these 

improvements have occurred without this particular conference series? Now, there is no strictly 

empirical way of answering this question because we lack a directly comparable situation in 

which we did not have our conferences. But we do, however, have what is termed a mensurative 

comparison, where our time series of conferences shows that, by any interpretation, this 

conference series has, in itself, contributed significantly to the improvements and increases we 

have seen. 

So my conclusion from this is simply, “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”. It is clear, I believe, that 

what we have done in the past, what we achieved here and what we will continue to achieve in 

these conferences adheres to a very good and sound model that continues to lead to significant 

improvements in the way these monitoring programs occur throughout the world. 

Finally, a few take-home messages. Firstly, it is important for people to realize that going to 

these sorts of conferences, and meeting with people like those that attend these conferences leads 

to all sorts of exchanges and developments that have ramifications far beyond our field and lead 

to planet-wide changes in how our fisheries operate. Secondly, we heard from Amy van Atten 

that Helen Keller said, “I am one. But I am still one. I cannot do everything. But I can still do 

something and I will not refuse to do the something that I can do”. This is an important message 

to remember as we head home. And finally, please remember, “that the world is run by those 

who show up”. So I encourage you all to keep showing up at these conferences because by doing 

so you are improving our world’s fisheries and the way they are conducted. 

Comment 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

That hit on all of the points we covered and then some. We’ve been talking to you and giving 

you our take and summarization and next steps. What I want to do is open up the floor so that 

you can tell us what your take aways are and what you think the conference’s next steps should 

be. But what we’re going to do is start it off with Ernesto Altamirano. Ernesto has done a lot of 

observing of tuna in the South American areas – Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 274
An International & Management Perspective 

Ernesto Altamirano 

IATTC 

I want to say that although I do come here representing the IATTC – one of the few RFMOs on 

tuna that actually has staff committed to work with observers and fisheries and science – I am 

going to comment as an ex-observer and now manager of observers. 

I’d like to convey to the conference organizers and steering committee the greetings and gratitude 

of the director of the IATTC – the International American Tropical Tuna Commission -, Dr. 

Guillermo Compeán and the head of our program, Dr. Martin Hall. These kind of meetings have 

given the IATTC staff invaluable amount of information and knowledge, not only from the 

fishery science but from the experience of observers that have been really fortunate to meet in 

these meetings. 

The scope of this particular meeting from training observers to defuse and resolve conflicts, 

monitoring vessels with electronic system, to identifying the needs for distribution and release of 

observer data, to extrapolation of data, observer professionalism – you name it. It’s a lot of 

information. 

My comment to the IATTC is that without that kind of information that we get from you guys, we 

would have spent a lot of years making a lot of mistakes. So that is something that we have 

gotten from you guys all over these five meetings that the IATTC staff has been able to attend. 

On the personal level, it has been my pleasure to meet new and old friends, and to learn from the 

experience of work being done in other oceans. The enthusiasm and the level of professionalism 

that people from Africa or from Asia show – it really rejuvenates the excitement for me to work 

in this line of work. 

I think that observers allow us focus not only on identifying the problems, but on finding ways to 

solve the problems. So although I do believe that eventually we’ll use electronic ways to see 

things, in order to look beyond that, we will always need observers. 

My final point – I have messages for three types of stakeholders here. First, and most importantly 

to observers, thank you – thank you very much for all the work you do, for your professionalism, 

for the kind of moral standards you put out there every time you go out in a boat, by yourself 

without supervision, sometimes feeling that everybody’s against you. “The kind of work you do 

–I don’t know how you do it, but I got to take my hat off to you”. 

My second message is to the observers’ managers and those scientists that use the data of 

observers, Embrace your observers, and treat them well, and pay them well (or as much as you 

can.) Most importantly, don’t you ever use the phrase that I’ve heard many, many times, “They 

are out there anyway.” Gathering all the information that observers gather takes a lot of work and 

the kind of information observers bring is invaluable. I can think of a lot of things that I would 

like to do and like to get out there from observers, but I also view it in the human aspect of this 

observer doing as much work as she or he can with the little amount of time that he has. So that’s 

my message to them. 

My final message would be to the fishers- I would say thank you, too, for taking the observers. 

Think of observers not as a supervising and monitoring police force. Think of observers as the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 275
people that will allow us to work together so my six year old son can have tuna, salmon, etc. 

when he gets to be my age. 

Closing Comments from the Floor of the 6th International 

Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference 

Andrew Ashley 

East West Technical Services 

USA

I’m an observer in the northeast USA and I work through East-West Technical Services. It’s 

absolutely inspiring to get a much more deep vision into how the data is used and where it’s 

possibly going to take us in the future. 

Vicki Cornish 

Ocean Conservancy 

USA 

It’s been a very long and interesting evolution to see these conferences take the shape that they 

have, and I’m really just very excited to be able to be here. I used to work for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and for the National Observer Program. I left the government a couple 

of years ago and I joined the NGO community. It’s been a very interesting transition for me. It’s 

been an eye opening journey to take a step back and look at what we’re doing in the oceans and to 

the oceans and for the oceans. 

I think we take a lot out of the ocean that we definitely need to keep track of. We put a lot into 

the ocean that I’m concerned about. We also do a lot for the ocean, and that’s really what you 

guys are here about in terms of the Observer Program is making sure that we are creating the 

sustainable resource for the future. I really like the mission of this conference and the focus on 

sustainability and the observer data as the key for us to get there. 

I want to focus on our common goals because I think that’s what brought us together even before 

Seattle to the very first conference in Galveston, Texas where we came together as a NMFS 

community – the National Marine Fishery Service community for the first time to really talk 

about observer programs and how to share information. All the programs were operating 

independently, and I don’t think that that’s a very efficient way and a certainly not very fun way 

to operate. So bringing people together is really key and core to the effectiveness of observer 

programs over time. 

I just encourage us (even though there is going to be a lot of interesting new angles brought into 

these conferences every time) to remember what brings us together and these common goals that 

we have around expanding observer coverage to more and more fisheries around the world so that 

we have a better accounting of what comes out of the ocean. 

I also encourage us to improve the quality of the data that we collect in observer programs so that 

we are all working with good information and not just bits and pieces of information that don’t 

tell the whole picture. I have to make a plug – because I stand on the outside and I don’t have the 

access to the data anymore, but I do go to the council meetings and I do go to the fishery 

management sessions – “We need good access to data.” 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 276
That doesn’t mean I need his data or her data, we just need the data, and we need it to be shared. 

It’s a public resource. We pay a lot of money for this data. We need all of the users of the data to 

have access to it, including NGOs, including fishermen, including managers, including people 

from around the world. 

It’s key, we need to figure this out. I know there’s a lot of controversy around the use of data and 

public access. We’ve got to figure that out because that is key to keeping people involved in 

fisheries management and restoring the oceans to sustainability. 

Reuben Beazley 

Teamsters/ Seawatch 

Canada 

What we do as observers is basically we shine lights in dark corners. We get managers to ask 

questions about things that they didn’t know existed. I work alone all of the time when I’m on the 

water. These conferences are as much a part of my support group as anything that I have at 

home, from the company to the Coast Guard. 

Many times when I’m at the end of an 18 hour shift or I’m putting on that damn rubber gear at 

4:30 in the morning to go on deck and measure a few crabs, I ask myself, “Why the hell am I 

doing this?” I come here and I understand why, and it gives me a little bit of courage to go back 

out again. I thank you all for that. 

Pierre Meke 

Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal Industries 

Cameroon 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the USA and Canada, the forefathers of this 

conference which started eleven years ago. 

First, I would like to say that it was a very fruitful conference in terms of knowledge and 

exchanges. In terms of scientific observer programs, I would like to say that the USA, Canada, 

Europe, Australia, South America and Asia have well established programs while Africa is a 

standstill. 

My concern here is that the few delegates from Africa who attended to this conference may not 

be enough to spread and share the knowledge and to show how relevant are scientific observers in 

the management of fish resources. This is why I would like to advocate and convey that the 7th 

IFOMC should be held in Africa – and why not in Cameroon? This will surely contribute to raise 

awareness on the importance of scientific observers and their relevance to successful management 

of fish resources in the world. Thank you very much. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 277
Vladimir Puentes

on behalf of the Minister of Environment 

Columbia 

During this week I have learned much. I would like to thank all the people who made this 

possible. We are just trying now in Colombia to establish a national observers program with a 

continuous observer program. 

We already have research projects. The Minister of Environment is involved in this because 

discarding of noncommercial species of any fishery is our responsibility. The target fishers and 

bycatch commercial fishers are in charge of the fisheries authorities, so that means we have to 

work together to see what we are going to do with the whole thing. 

First of all, I just want to point out very few things about the whole conference. The data 

extrapolation workshop was really, really interesting to us. We won’t be able to have 100% 

coverage. We haven’t built our program, but I already know we won’t be able to be 100% 

coverage of that. So we need to know how to raise data. 

The other thing was it’s really nice to see that there are many other countries – especially the 

African countries and Latin American countries – in similar situations. Even if they already have 

an observer programs established, we have similar situations. Other countries, such as the United 

States, Canada or New Zealand, have established programs. That is a really good point of 

reference for us in order to build our own program. 

I didn’t see any presentation about observers programs in fresh water fisheries. We are thinking 

in Colombia we do need an observer program of fresh water fisheries because we do have huge 

river basins like the Amazon or the Orinoco River. We need to think about small scale fisheries or 

artisanal fisheries observers program as well, because it’s a huge part of our fisheries. 

It was a kind of funny to see pictures one or two days ago of vessels and facilities were difficult 

for many of the observers to work in. I just would say that those pictures appear for us as a really 

nice luxury transatlantic touristic thing. As I just began as an observer in Colombia, we didn’t 

have any toilet. The electronic monitoring was so nice to see, but I would say that is not an option 

for our country, because there would not be any camera when we come back to the port. 

So the other thing that’s really interesting is that we can use observer program, not only for 

monitoring, but also to make some assessment and also to enforce research and make decisions 

based on observers programs. That’s just really important for us, and that’s one of the things 

we’re struggling to make our government to see that it is important that scientific and technical 

data are used to make decisions about fisheries. 

Kjell Nedreaas 

Institute of Marine Research 

Norway 

Chairman, organizers and steering committee, thank you very much for hosting an important, 

interesting, and good conference. The conference has covered a lot of important issues. 

Especially, I would like to mention the broad and worldwide participation. I have participated in 

this conference one time before, in Sydney, and I see the development both in that respect and in 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 278
others. As Steven said in his summary, if it’s something that is functioning, don’t change it. I 

think this conference has been the broadest in promises from a concerning topic and issues and 

participation ever. I also appreciate very much the observers’ participation as presenters and in 

the discussions. 

Participation by the fishing industry and environmental groups has also been very good. I 

encourage you to come back next time even stronger. 

Being at an observer conference is very motivating for us scientists. We are completely 

dependent on the sampling you are doing out there. You are among many things [data collection 

systems/programs] we’ve heard about, but we are dependent on you. You are our – if I can say 

that – our ambassadors out there. 

People have been asking me questions about how we are doing assessments, how we are 

estimating this, how we are estimating that. The workshop run by Lisa at this conference was an 

example of saying a little bit more about our methods and how we are doing it. 

In some countries, like in Norway, the observers are employed by the institute, so it is more or 

less incorporated. In other parts, it is by outside institutes, private companies that provide 

observers. This could be something that should be thought of for the coming workshops to do a 

little bit more of – not too sophisticated. Not too deep. But these simple procedures we are doing 

when we are giving advice about the resources. 

When I’m talking about the observers and I would just underline and appreciate and motivate you 

to go back and continue this important work. You are – as it was said here by others – you are 

securing the sustainability in our oceans for the future. We have to rely on you and we need you 

– we need people out there, even if we now have seen more about electronic monitoring. 

So towards the next conference, electronic monitoring will be more on the table. It will be 

important, as you think of the next conference, when you are preparing your electronic 

monitoring projects to ensure there are comparative studies. I suggest making comparative 

projects with other means and measures we have there. 

Next year, there will – we will maybe hear more about that. There will be a conference in Ireland 

run by International Council of the Exploration of the Sea. I am among those who will welcome 

the next conference to Europe, so that we can bring a little bit more of ICES and European fishery 

into the conference. I regret a little bit that we didn’t prepare more presentations maybe as a kind 

of short summary from ICES work at this conference, but we’ll come stronger back on that. 

So finally, thank you very much. It has been a great pleasure for me and I have a lot of things 

that I bring with me home and will motivate others at home as well, so thank you very much. 

Steve Kennelly 

NSW Department of Primary Industries 

USA 

Kjell getting up reminded me that we put a pamphlet out on the tables the other day that’s not 

really about an observer monitoring-type converse. But it’s about using fishery dependent data 

better and more and expanding on all of that. The conference will be in Galway, which is a pretty 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 279
cool place, and it’s just a bit of a plug for that conference because it’s important to try to 

maximize the use of that sort of data. It’s a much more analytical type of conference than what 

we’re used to here. 

The other thing – and I’d like to say to Norway is that we’ve sort of lacked in this conference 

series of hearing about the sophisticated stuff that happens in Norwegian fisheries. Like I said, 

one of the most advanced – probably the most advanced country in the world in terms of fisheries 

management. Some of us have had the pleasure of seeing it firsthand. 

It would be good to get more – especially the bycatch production work that they’ve done, which 

has led the world for the last two or three decades, and all the observer work they do. 

Georg Hinteregger 

Observer 

USA 

I’ve been going to these since the one in Newfoundland in 2000 and it’s just fabulous to see old 

faces again. A suggestion of what I want to encourage us to consider for the next meeting. In the 

USA, we increasingly have industry funded observer programs to pose as an answer to the high 

cost of observer coverage. Often this is not accompanied by the realization that when industry 

pays, they must also be allowed to go into the marketplace to purchase the service from multiple 

providers. 

Back in 1999 during the IFOC in Seattle, the problem with this model in terms of data integrity 

and quality of life for observers was analyzed and identified. Recommendations were put in 

place to discourage the use of this service delivery model. Nonetheless, the system continues to 

in the North Pacific and has now been authorized in the northeast USA. 

On a positive note, when the multi-provider system was proposed by various interests in Canada, 

observers, fisheries, scientists and managers worked together to prevent this from happening. 

Unlike in the USA, it appears that in Canada, it is legal to have an industry funded observer 

program such as the highly successful British Columbia program we’ve heard so much about 

without having the industry cherry pick among provider companies. 

From my casual contact with some of our international delegates, it seems much of the world 

treats the observer workforce as regular civil servants. At the same time, there is also great 

variability in how the job is structured in countries around the world. With so much of the world 

now represented at this conference, it would be a valuable as a minimum to inventory the 

structuring of the various observer programs and perhaps also to take the opportunity to identify 

the strengths and weaknesses of the various services and delivery models. 

Oscar Guzman 

Institute for Fisheries Development 

Chile 

Thank you very much steering committee. Dennis, it has been a great conference. I enjoyed it a 

lot and learned even more. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 280
I must say that I feel a little bit shamed. The Chilean participation in this conference has been 

very poor. It should be greater, because we started our data collection system and observer 

program very early, in 1964, being an initiative of the Chilean government, the fishing industry 

and FAO. We started with 20 scientific observers, and today we have 154. All of them are part 

of the staff of our institution. 

During these days, we hear a lot about the increasing importance of electronic data collection 

systems and other data quality management systems. I think in this regard, we must join effort in 

order to avoid duplications. To get budgeted for these purposes is not easy. The observer and 

technician time investment for this purpose is very vital. 

I would like to encourage the steering committee to organize an international working group on 

this subject; I think it is very important. 

Keith Davis 

Association for Professional Observers 

USA 

I support and agree with everything Georg stated in his account of the service delivery model. I 

think it would be good to at least do a comparison or consider having a panel of service delivery 

model comparison study. 

Bob Trumble 

MRAG Americas 

USA

As we’ve wrapped up, discussed, looked at the diversity, looked at the expansion of countries and 

kinds of programs, I started thinking how this diversity fits in with the earlier discussion we had 

on observer qualifications. 

Many of the countries we’re dealing with who are now coming into our conference and are giving 

us their experiences and hopefully gathering something from ours won’t have the capacity to 

require four year degrees in their observers. I think that it makes a lot of sense to look at an 

observer qualification component in the next conference. 

To look at what we can get from non-four year degrees, what it takes to train them, what kind of 

drawbacks we may face. We’re going to have lack of capacity to have four year degrees in all of 

our observer programs. I would really encourage you to think about having this kind of a 

component in your next program. I’d really like to see how observer programs in other regions 

have used high school degrees, or maybe even less. What do they try to do? What are they 

paying? What kind of problems do they have? How can we help them with that? 

Maybe over the course of that kind of discussion, we may rethink our stand here in the USA. But 

barring that, I think we could help programs to develop the most efficient kind of training and 

development of observers for the particular situation they’re in. Thanks. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 281
Joe Arceneaux 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

I’m not sure what the structure of the next conference will be, but I would like to see a panel 

discussion or a workshop on the training tools the more established, mature programs have and 

those tools that are easily transportable that could be given as somewhat of a turnkey operation to 

new and developing programs. 

That’s one need that I see that comes up a lot. And I know that it happens. We have a lot of 

informal contact after these conferences. But I’d hate to think that somebody that needed 

something like that walked away without bumping in to the right person. So that’s a subject I’d 

like to see addressed. Thanks. 

Graeme Parkes 

MRAG Ltd. 

United Kingdom

Regarding Steve Kennelly’s comment about Norway, I think we should be encouraging more 

participation from Europe, particularly more information about observer programs in Europe at 

the next conference. 

Paul MacGregor 

At-Sea Processors Association 

USA

I am one of the industry representatives here. I was one of the three people who stood on the first 

day when Rebecca asked various sectors to stand up and there were only three industry 

representatives who were willing or honest enough to stand up and be identified here. 

I’ve been checking under my bed before I went to sleep each night, locking my door and 

everything else. And nothing bad has happened, so I decided I’d stand up and sort of come clean 

in front of you all here about who I am and what I’m up to here. 

I’m a lawyer, and I’ve been in the fishing business for 30 years. I am the general counsel of the 

At Sea Processors Association. It’s the pollock catcher processor fleet that operates in the Bering 

Sea. We’re the people who invented harvesting co-ops in the ground fish fisheries. We’re quite 

proud of that. Our boats are large scale vessels, anywhere from 280 to 350 feet in length. And 

we carry a complement of up to125 people on our boats, and we fish for pollock. We carry two 

observers at all times. We’ve began carrying one observer in 1990 at all times. And since 1998 

we’ve been carrying two, and we pay for them, every penny for twenty years. 

I’ve also got a confession to make, and that is that we are the ones who invented the service 

delivery model that you’ve heard some complaints about. If I had a recommendation for you 

today, it’s to have a panel discussion at the next IFOMC, and let’s talk about it. 

It may not be a perfect system, but it’s the only one we had at the beginning, and we were the 

ones who stood up and said, “We’re willing to pay for observers. We need them. We want them 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 282
and we want ‘them now.” They said to us, “There’s no mechanism for funding an observer 

program in the North Pacific.” We got our wallets out and we’ve been paying for them ever 

since. And if there’s a better way of doing business, and you can show us that you can deliver 

high quality observer coverage on a cost effective basis for a fishery of our size, I’d be willing to 

listen to you. 

But until then, we’re going to keep doing business the way we have because it works and as of 

now – twenty years into this – nobody’s ever been able to point out an instance – not a single 

instant where that service delivery model has affected the delivery of quality data. The only thing 

that’s ever happened is that somebody looked at this and said, “Oh, there’s a perception of 

impropriety here because the industry is paying to an observer contractor the money for the 

observers to come to the boat.” That’s what we’ve been blamed with. 

Like I say, there’s never been a single instance in all that time of anybody showing that that has 

affected the quality of the data that’s been delivered. Now there could be better ways of doing it. 

One way might go to congress and ask them to provide the $10 million a year that we pay for 

observer coverage through the federal government, but so far that hasn’t ever happened. As long 

as we’re paying for it, I think we have a say in what the structure of the program ought to be. But 

that doesn’t mean we’re not willing to listen to alternative ways of doing business. I’m quite 

proud of what we’ve done over the years, and I’m quite proud of the role that the observers have 

played in our fishery, because we probably have one of the cleanest, most successful fisheries 

anywhere in the world. 

I’d like to close with a little anecdote – some facetious testimony I gave to the North Pacific 

Council a number of years ago when everybody had been sitting around for five or six days 

complaining about halibut bycatch. We had all the gear groups and all the fishing people in the 

room pointing at each other and blaming each other with halibut bycatch rates. 

And I was sitting back there thinking – and I was one of the ones being accused of representing 

people who had too high of a halibut bycatch. And I came up with a solution to halibut bycatch. 

It was clear to me after listening that the solution was to get rid of the damn observers. Because 

only the boats that had observers seemed to have halibut bycatch. 

Well, as they thought about that, everybody started leaving the room. There were people in the 

room who’d been blaming us, because we had an X percent of halibut bycatch. We’d been 

carrying observers every time we went fishing. But everybody was pointing the fingers at people 

who had never carried an observer to sea. So it’s pretty clear to me that the observers were the 

root of this problem, and that’s one way of solving bycatch for the world. 

Keith Davis 

Observer and APO Board Member 

USA 

I would like to address the perception issue that you’re talking, to just outline what that 

perception can be as far as the conflict of interest arising from having such a direct relationship 

between contractors and industry. 

I think as an observer going out there, you can be kind of influenced by a contractor, or you may 

just have the perception that your contractor may not want to hire you back if you complain about 

a certain thing on your boat, for example, an unsafe condition, because that industry is the one 

that’s paying for the observers to be on board. It’s in a direct relationship with the contractor, and 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 283
there are four other contractors in the region that they could go to. So the industry could say to 

the contractor, “Do not put an observer like that on our boat again or we’ll go to another 

contractor in the region.” I just wanted to outline that perception that you talked about. 

Paul MacGregor 

At-Sea Processors Association 

USA

Well, I acknowledge that there is a perception that might be a possibility. We’ve been doing this 

for twenty years and nobody’s ever shown us where that has actually happened. 

And like I say, we’re the only people that have ever said we’ll pay for our observer program. 

Now I don’t hear anybody else around the country standing up here and saying they’re willing to 

pay for their observer program. They look to the government to do it. It costs twice as much for 

the government to deliver an observer per day to the systems that they operate. 

Now we’ve put to sea each year 36,000 observer days in the North Pacific. It’s more than the 

entire rest of the country put together, and we pay for it. And so the cost effectiveness of the 

program is real important to us. And if there’s a better way of getting that cost effective observer 

coverage to our fleet, we want it and we’re willing to sit down and talk about it. 

We came up with this program twenty years ago. There wasn’t a single observer program in the 

country at the time when we did that. If it’s time to redo it, let’s sit down and talk about it. But 

the dollars that we pay for that program each year 

are not going to come out of the federal government. 

I can guarantee you that. 

Dennis Hansford’s Closing Remarks 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA

If we get anything from the feds, we’re going to end 

up with a lot less coverage. To us, comprehensive 

coverage is an advantage. It’s a benefit to our 

fishery, and we appreciate the work that the 

observers play in our fishery. And we don’t want to 

see it diminish – diminution of either the quality of 

the observers themselves or the data that they 

generate for us. 

I would make one recommendation-I think it’s a 

good idea to have industry come to these 

conferences. I would recommend that you do a little 

bit of outreach between now and the next session. 

I’ll certainly be here. I learned a lot and I met a lot 

of very interesting people and I really appreciate the 

opportunity to be here. Thank you. 

Dennis Hansford 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

USA 

I want to thank all the delegates for your comments and we are at a point where we will have to 

adjourn this session. I wish you speedy and safe travels home, and we look forward to seeing you 

at the Seventh International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 284
Reports from Extra-Plenary Sessions 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 285
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 286
Report of the Data Extrapolation Workshop 

Lisa Borges 1 

European Commission, Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

Vicki Cornish 2

 

Ocean Conservancy 

1. Introduction 

The IFOMC Steering Committee proposed a pre-conference workshop on data extrapolation for 

the 2009 Conference, to be held on Monday the 20th of July. The data extrapolation workshop 

was organized to meet a concurrent request for an extensive discussion of the issues involved in 

analyzing discard data coming from monitoring programmes around the world. While most 

countries collect data at-sea, few programmes have the resources or the management requirement 

to sample a fishery at 100% observer coverage. This results in the need for robust methodologies 

to be used in data extrapolation, an area where presently there is little guidance, but where 

common approaches are fundamental to ensure comparability between program results. 

2. Objectives 

The objective of the workshop was to establish a set of common best practice in data 

extrapolation. The specific objectives of the workshop were to: 

a) identify and summarize the concerns countries have in relation to extrapolation 

procedures; 

b) review extrapolation methods used around the world by comparing the results 

between raising methods and fisheries, identifying the advantages and limitations of 

each procedure; 

c) and provide simple summary guidelines for data extrapolation. 

3. Organization 

The workshop programme was initially divided in two groups: rare and common occurrences of 

discarded species. This division was based on the different data characteristics (dominance of 

zero values in the data set), discard estimates objectives (ex: fishing impact on endangered 

species, fishing mortality estimates from stock assessment), knowledge of the population 

(availability and quality of raising variables), bias and precision estimates, and finally models 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 287
assumptions and applicability (considering zero values and overdispersion). The morning session 

was therefore divided into commonly and rarely discarded species, each with a general 

presentation followed by a panel discussion led by invited scientists with experience in analyzing 

each type of data. The afternoon discussion was divided into four major aspects: issues associated 

with raising variables (haul/trip, landings, effort); analytical techniques for common occurrences; 

analytical techniques for rare occurrences; and considerations for sampling to facilitate analysis. 

In practice however, the afternoon discussion focused on all four aspects without a clear division. 

4. Abstracts of the talks 

Commonly discarded species – Lisa Borges 

The ICES workshop on discard raising procedures was held in 2007 in San Sebastian, Spain1

. In 

this workshop a common raising procedure was applied to a set of data covering a maximum of 

different European fisheries, sampling programmes and regions. The objective was to establish, if 

not a common methods for raising, at least a set of common best practice to be used to raise 

discard data. The auxiliary variables considered were: number of fishing trips, landings of target 

species, and fishing hours. Two additional variables (total landings – all species summed, and 

fishing days) were also examine when the previous ones were not available/applicable. The 

results show that particular methods under- or overestimate discard estimates systematically. 

Specifically, there is an ascending tendency to overestimate discards from trips to landings to 

effort variables used in the raising procedure. Regarding the precision of the raised discard 

estimates, there is a descending order of precision from fishing hours to trips to landings 

variables, i.e. fishing hours providing the most precise raised discard estimates. Finally, the 

workshop concluded that there is a systematic method to assess, compare and finally choose a 

procedure to raise discards. This procedure was compiled as a key (Discard Raising Procedure 

Key), where two major issues/characteristics (representativeness and quality) have to be assessed, 

followed by a subset of decisions that lead to a final choice of procedure. It is essential to apply 

different raising procedures and compare the resulting discards estimates, as unforeseen problems 

with the data may only appear through the comparison of different procedures. Ideally the chosen 

raising procedure should be unbiased, precise, and simple. 

Rarely discarded species – Kimberly Murray 

Different analytical approaches from those used to estimate discards of common species are often 

needed to estimate discards of protected species due to the rare occurrence of protected species 

discards (or bycatch). This talk reviews several analytical approaches used by staff at the 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC; Woods Hole, MA, USA) to estimate total bycatch 

of sea turtles, marine mammals, and sea birds, using fisheries observer data and total commercial 

fishing effort (i.e. from logbooks or dealer transactions). Prior to estimating total bycatch, data 

need to be evaluated with respect to the choice of sampling unit (i.e. hauls or trips), and the 

choice of the raising variable (i.e. hours fished or total landings). The choice will likely affect the 

amount of total estimated bycatch and uncertainty around the estimates. Ideally the response, or 

bycatch event, should have a statistical relationship with the raising variable, though often this 

relationship is hard to detect because there are so few bycatch events. The choice of raising 

variable may also be constrained by the quality or quantity of data in the commercial datasets. 

Protected species bycatch is an extremely rare event (for instance there may be 1 bycatch event in 

3,000 hauls), causing datasets to have an excessive amount of zeros. Ignoring this feature of the 

data and applying standard error models may cause inferences to be incorrect and parameter 

estimates biased. There is also low power to detect significant effects when evaluating factors that 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 288
affect bycatch rates. As a result, techniques to estimate bycatch need to be carefully chosen and 

evaluated. Multiple approaches should ideally be compared to ensure an estimate is not sensitive 

to a particular model or technique. Some methods used by the NEFSC have been: 1) Ratio 

Estimators, stratified to increase precision of the bycatch estimates, 2) Generalized Additive 

Models, and 3) Generalized Linear Models. Uncertainty around the bycatch estimates (coefficient 

of variations and confidence intervals) are computed via bootstrapping routines. Overdispersion is 

a common problem in datasets with excess zeros, and occurs when the observed variance of the 

response is larger than the predicted variance from the model. Overdispersion can be evaluated 

via the dispersion parameter, and if present can be remedied by including important explanatory 

variables in the model, or assigning a different error distribution to the model. 

After a model from the fisheries observer data is developed to estimate bycatch, the model is 

applied to commercial fisheries data to estimate total bycatch. Prior to applying the model, 

commercial data should be evaluated for comprehensiveness (i.e. does the data represent a 

complete census of all commercial effort?) and representativeness (if the data are not 

comprehensive, do they represent the general spatial and temporal distribution of all commercial 

effort?). 

In summary, when estimating total discards of a rare species, one needs to proceed cautiously 

with inference from observer data, which often represent low levels of sampling (i.e. <5%). 

Results from multiple analytical approaches and units of analyses should be compared. If this is 

not possible, uncertainty should be incorporated throughout the analytical process to ensure that 

the final total bycatch estimates are robust. 

5. Discussion 

5.1. Raising variable 

The questions and discussion that followed the presentations in the workshop were mainly related 

to the variables used for extrapolating data, its associated issues and fisheries applicability. Types 

of raising variables with examples from fisheries around the world are: 

 Trips – The number of trips made by a fishery is usually relatively easy to obtain. Trips 

are also generally considered less sensitive to misreporting than other raising variables. 

Furthermore, if the sampling unit is considered at trip level (see section 5.2) then total 

number of trips is considered an unbiased estimator. However, defining a fishing trip 

requires careful examination when multiple areas/gears are used (see sections 5.2 and 

5.3). Fishing trips is used to estimate discards from many demersal European fisheries. 

 Species landings – this variable can give biased discard estimates, particularly in low 

sampling levels2

. It is also more likely to be misreported in many European fisheries. 

 Target species landings – In the Dutch pelagic trawler fishery target species varies with 

seasons thus it can not be used as raising variable for annual estimations. It is also not a 

good raising variable in the USA shrimp trawl fishery and the reef fish fishery in the Gulf 

of Mexico, as it is highly dependent on fishing ground. However, if there is a clear, 

common and constant group of target species in a fishery, then target species is as good 

as raising variable as total landings, provided there is no landing misreporting. Examples 

of fisheries where target species may be used as raising variable include: the North Sea 

beam trawl fisheries and gadoid trawl fisheries, Columbian demersal trawl fishery, and 

Norwegian shrimp trawl fishery. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 289
 Total landings – used in many European fisheries as it is available, has a linear 

relationship with discards so is less likely to be biased, although provides somewhat 

variable results (high coefficient of variation; CV's). Total retained species is also used in 

the USA northeastern fisheries for both common and rare occurrences (i.e. sink gillnet 

fisheries) of discarded species. 

 Effort – Time spent fishing (i.e. hours fished for mobile gear or soak time for fixed gear) 

is used in some fisheries to estimate total discards. Hours fished is a good estimator for 

the USA shrimp trawl fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. Time fishing has also been used to 

estimate total bycatch of turtles and marine mammal bycatch from USA northeastern 

bottom otter trawl and scallop dredge fisheries. Soak time has been used to estimate 

marine mammal bycatch in the French gillnet fisheries3

. Effort data can also be evaluated 

by other sources of data such as electronic monitoring (video cameras and sensors), 

vessels monitoring systems (VMS), or interviews. 

 VMS – Vessel Monitoring System data has been used in Norway to ultimately estimate 

landings of a fishery with high levels of IUU (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated 

fishing). VMS data was used to estimate the number of vessels in operation in the fishery 

and its levels of activity, which was then used as a raising variable to estimate retained 

catch. VMS data can also be used to refine effort between steaming and fishing days. 

 Interviews – In small scale fisheries usually there are no logbooks or VMS requirements 

so there may be little information regarding catch and fishing activity. Interviews and 

direct sightings surveys are used (under a mark-recapture logic) to estimate number of 

vessels in the Frasier River salmon fishery, BC, Canada. Other sources of information 

such as bait sales or fuel sales, may give an indication of fishing effort. 

5.2. Sampling unit 

One topic that was also discussed was at what sampling level is the sampling unit considered in 

data extrapolation analysis. This is because discard monitoring programmes are multistage 

sampling schemes, where sampling can be considered at different stages, but the decision may 

have implication in the final estimation4

 . Ideally a multistage estimator should be used to 

extrapolate data, but requires specific data at each sampling level that is often unavailable. In 

most trawl fisheries the sampling unit is considered at trip level. On the other hand, there are 

many fisheries where a different fishing method is used in each set/haul. An example is the tuna 

purse seine fishery (difference between fish aggregating device - FAD or school sets), the 

Portuguese polyvalent fishery (swaps between gillnets, longline and traps) or the Columbian 

lobster fishery (uses traps and snorkel). In these fisheries, the sampling unit is either considered at 

the haul level or a trip is considered to be composed by a group of similar sets/hauls (i.e. a 

subtrip). In any case, for extrapolation purposes it requires information regarding the population 

at the same level (landings/effort by haul/set). 

When estimating total discards of rare species in USA northeastern fisheries, the sampling unit 

analyzed is usually the haul. Analyzing at the haul level provides more information about bycatch 

rates than at the trip level. However, when analyzing at the haul level some common model 

assumptions need to be evaluated, such as whether hauls represent independent sampling events. 

If not, then it may be more appropriate to analyze at the trip level. 

When the sampling unit is chosen at trip level a decision needs to be taken regarding the nonobserved hauls since most observers are unable to sample all hauls within a trip. The nonProceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 290
observed hauls are either ignored in the analysis or the sampled hauls are extrapolated to the nonobserved hauls. The later is usually applied, using one of the raising variables described above (in 

Europe). In the USA northeastern fisheries, non-sampled hauls are excluded from the sample 

used to estimate fish discards and bycatch of turtles. 

5. 3 .Representativeness 

One of the issues discussed further was related to the decision of representativeness. Quantitative 

and qualitative methods can be used to determine if a sample is representative of the population. 

The choice of method may depend on the sampling coverage and the data available, i.e. from 

visual comparison of the data distribution, to t-test to a modeling approach. Several variables 

should be compared between what was sampled in the monitoring programme and the whole 

fishery: gear type, mesh size, vessel length, trip duration, total species landings. Temporal and 

spatial characteristics (where and when fishing occurred) should also be compared. In the USA 

northeastern fisheries, the distribution of differences between observed trips and non-observed 

trips were examined for the average trip duration and average total kept pounds of all species to 

see whether the distribution of data is centered around zero5

.

The definition of a "fishery" may also impact the raising variable available for extrapolation. For 

example, if logbook data is not sufficiently detailed to allow for a finer fishery distinction, the 

data at population level cannot be rightly attributed to the sampled fishery, which may led to 

biased results. Fishery definition issues can also be detected from data analyse which can be used 

to further improve sampling. Target species is used to define a fishery in the tuna purse seine 

fishery and in British Columbia, Canada where fishermen are asked to fill the logbook with the 

target species by haul. In USA northeastern fisheries, target species often defines how fisheries 

are defined and managed (i.e. by Fishery Management Plan (FMP) group), though for analytical 

purposes a fishery is often defined by gear type. Sampling is also allocated by gear type (versus 

by a fishery defined by the target species) so in some cases there is a lack of data available to help 

manage a particular target species or species group. 

5.4 Improving sampling 

Sampling schemes should target their sampling effort where there is higher data variability. In 

many fisheries there is higher catch variability between vessels/skipper and trips than between 

hauls within a trip. In this case, there is a gain in sampling more trips than hauls6

. There is also an 

advantage in sampling less hauls within a trip but spend more time and sampling extensively each 

haul7

. This may be of particular importance when there is high species diversity in the catch (e.g. 

the Columbia demersal trawl fishery), when there is a conflict between primary and secondary 

sampling objectives (e.g. between commercial and non-commercial species), or limitations in an 

observer's workload. To avoid loosing information, the solution may be to focus the sampling 

effort by sampling less hauls but more extensively. Another example is the monitoring 

programme for turtle bycatch in the USA northeastern demersal fisheries, where limited sampling 

resources are focused on the geographical area of turtle occurrence, or times and areas whit 

historically high bycatch rates. 

A further aspect is the need in most programmes to sample several species or fisheries 

simultaneously, but where each requires different sampling levels, due to different abundance 

level, biology, conservation risk, catch composition, trip duration, etc. In this case, a compromise 

needs to be reached between each sampling requirement and the programme resources limitation. 

In practice, the different sampling objectives are prioritized and sampling is targeted accordingly. 

Although at the end of the process some species or fisheries may not be sampled, data quality for 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 291
the ones that are sampled is ensured. This is the approach taken in many European observers 

programmes. 

An issue interlinked to this discussion is the precision level that the final estimate needs to 

achieve. Precision levels depend on the type of data and objectives of each sampling programme. 

The journal Ecology published a special feature on Statistics of Rarity8

 that addressed the 

phenomena of rareness in ecology and the unique challenges faced by biologists when 

quantifying different biological processes that involve rare species in nature. In this special issue 9

addresses how to potentially improve precision from rare events. 

Target precision levels for USA northeastern fisheries bycatch estimates a 30% coefficient of 

variation (CV) annually for finfish discard, while marine mammal requirements are based on a 5-

year average10. In the European Union the requirement is a 12.5% CV of annual estimations. 

However, the main concern for a sampling scheme is to avoid being biased (check for 

representativeness of the samples collected; 11 provides methods to estimate and evaluate bias in 

monitoring programmes). 

Rare species are not usually sub-sampled within the sample trips, i.e. all catch of rare species is 

recorded, particularly if sampling levels are low. This is the case in the USA shrimp trawl fishery 

in the Gulf of Mexico, USA northeastern demersal fisheries and Canadian offshore scallop 

fishery. The question that several programmes face is if it is worth the effort and money spent for 

very rare occurrences. This question may be replied in a legal context, if there is a legal 

obligation to do so (i.e. USA Marine Mammal Protection Act), or in a cost-benefit analysis 

(impact on the species versus the investment made12. 

6. Conclusions 

The workshop concluded that although there are specific issues unique to rare and common 

occurrences of discarded species, both data types require the same general data analysis 

procedure, which can be summarized in three simple steps: check data, compare results, 

improve sampling. The first step includes checking and comparing the data (sampled and of the 

population) for its representativeness and quality. The second step includes estimating global 

discards or protected species bycatch using different methods and/or variables and comparing the 

results. Subsequently, an extrapolation method can be chosen. If, however, significant differences 

arise from the second step then there might be scope for fine tuning the sampling programme, 

which comprises the third step. 

Comparing results is an extremely important step in extrapolation data and estimating discards. It 

can show different fisheries definition, changes in fishing patterns, issues related to the sampled 

data representativeness, but also (and more commonly) identifies quality issues with the reported 

data (misreporting). Data from different monitoring programmes should be compared and used to 

verify each others sampled data and also official reported data. A further important point to 

highlight is that fishing behavior changes over time and thus representativeness and quality 

should be checked periodically. 

Finally, if extra funding is available it should be used to collect more data, instead of developing 

modeling approaches. Although models are a useful tool to estimate missing data, to provide 

predictions, to evaluate stratification and estimators, data is simply fundamental to monitor a 

changing activity such as fisheries. Furthermore, while a modeling approach to estimate discard 

may provide valuable additional information, it may be unpractical to be used in routine stock 

assessment. In this case, a simple estimator may be better to estimate discards, while a model may 

be better used to answer other fundamental questions. In any case, other methodologies should be 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 292
considered to further collect data from at-sea monitoring programmes, such as electronic 

monitoring (video cameras and sensors), interviews, reference fleets, self-reporting and 

alternative platforms13. This is of particular importance for rare species sampling programmes. 

Notes: 

1. ICES. 2007. ICES Workshop on Discard Raising Procedures (WDRP). 6-9 February, San Sebastian, 

Spain. ICES CM 2007\ACFM:06. 57 pp. 

http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACFM/2007/WKDRP/WKDRP07.pdf 

2. Stratoudakis, Y.; Fryer, R.J. and Cook, R.M. 1998. Discarding practices for commercial gadoids in the 

North Sea. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55: 1632-1644. 

3. IFREMER. 2007. Rapport national de la France pour l’année 2007 relatives aux captures accidentelles 

de cétacés dans les pêcheries. 34 pp. http://www.accobams.org/2006.php/pages/show/313 

4. Borges, L.; Zuur, A.F.; Rogan, E. and Officer, R. 2005. “Choosing the best sampling unit and auxiliary 

variable for discard estimations”. Fisheries Research, 75: 29-39. 

5. Wigley, S.E.; Rago, P.J.; Sosebee, K.A. and Palka, D.L. 2007. The analytic component to the 

Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus Amendment: sampling design and estimation of 

precision and accuracy (2nd edition). U.S. Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 07-09. 156 

p. 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0709/index.htm 

6. Borges, L.; Zuur, A.F.; Rogan, E. and Officer, R. 2004. “Optimum sampling levels in discard sampling 

programmes”. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 61: 1918-1928. 

7. Vigneau, J.; Demanèche, S.; Gaudou, O.; Merrien, C.; Rochet, M.-J. and Tétard, A. 2007. The French 

experience on discards raising procedures. Working Document for the ICES Workshop on Discards Raising 

Procedures. San Sebastian, Spain. 6-9 February 2007. 8 pp. 

8. Ellison, A.M. and Agrawal, A.A. 2005. Statistics of Rarity. Ecology, 86(5): 1079-1080. 

9. Dixon, P.M.; Ellison, A.M. and Gotelli, N.J. 2005. Improving the precision of estimates of the 

frequency of rare events. Ecology, 86(5):1114-1123. 

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/publications/papers/2005/statistics%20of%20rarity%20special%20feat

ure%202005.pdf 

10. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Evaluating bycatch: a national approach to 

standardized bycatch monitoring programs. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-66. 

108 p. http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm 

11. ICES. 2008. Report of the Workshop on Methods to Evaluate and Estimate the Accuracy of Fisheries 

Data used for Assessment (WKACCU). 27–30 October, Bergen, Norway. ICES CM 2008\ACOM:32. 41 

pp. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2008/WKACCU/wkaccu_2008.pdf 

12. Northridge, S. 2009. North Sea and 812. Implementation of Regulation 812/2004 in the North Sea. 

Talk presented at the European Commission Workshop on incidental catches of cetaceans. (24 March), 

Brussels, Belgium.

13. Kolkmeyer, T.; Guthrie, B.; Byrd, B.L. and Hohn, A.A. 2007. Report on the Alternative Platform 

Observer Program in North Carolina: March 2006 to March 2007. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC558. 20 p. http://aquacomm.fcla.edu/2137/1/Fish_TM_558.pdf 

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/meetings_events/events/archives/events_2009/240309/presentations_en.htm 

14. Wigley, S.E.; Palmer, M.C.; Blaylock, J. and Rago, P.J. 2008. A brief description of the discard 

estimation for the National Bycatch Report. U.S. Dept. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 08-

02. 35 p. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0802/index.html 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 293
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 294
6th IFOMC Observer Professionalism Working Group (OPWG) Update 

Edited by: Keith G. Davis1

Fisheries Observer/ Association for Professional Observers (APO) 

 USA 1

OPWG Terms of Reference1

:

OPWG Mission:

The mission of the Observer Professionalism Working Group (OPWG) is to investigate, 

categorize, and prioritize the international working knowledge of observer employment practices 

in order to outline principles that foster the proficient professional development of fisheries 

observers; whilst working to ensure and strengthen the technical integrity of the profession and 

fisheries observer and monitoring programs. 

OPWG Membership:

Steering Committee Liaison: 

Amy Van Atten NE Observer Program Branch Chief Woods Hole, MA USA 

Chair: 

Keith Davis Fisheries Observer; APO USA 

Members: 

Ave Eddie Agae2 Native Fisheries Observer Program Manager Honolulu, Hawaii USA 

Shikami Kennedy 

Akweyu Chief Fisheries Officer Mombasa, Kenya 

Rueben Beazley Fisheries Observer; Union Shop Steward St. John’s, N.F. Canada 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 295
Larry Beerkircher SE Observer Program Operations Manager Miami, Florida USA 

Anik Clemens NOAA Fisheries Technical Writer 

St. Petersburg, Florida, 

USA 

Dawn Golden PIRO Observer Trainer/ Debriefer Honolulu, Hawaii USA 

Chris Heineken Observer Training/ Deployment Director Cape Town, South Africa 

Patricia Mancini Observer Program Representative Itajai, Brazil 

Tracey Mayhew Observer Union Representative Anchorage, Alaska USA 

Jon McVeigh West Coast Observer Lead Debriefer Eureka, California USA 

Sara Monteiro EC Fisheries Adviser/ Technical Writer Brussels, Belgium 

Tom Nishida International Fisheries Research Officer Shizuoka, Japan 

Mike Orcutt Observer Operations Coordinator Victoria, B.C. Canada 

Ebol Rojas Fisheries Observer; APO Ozumba, Mexico 

Bob Stanley 

Technical Manager, Boat Information 

Systems Canberra, Australia 

Teresa Turk3 International Observer Program Coordinator Silver Spring, M.D. USA 

Elaine Ward WFT Social Equity Specialist Victoria, B.C. Canada 

Sara Wetmore NE Observer Program Area Lead Woods Hole, MA USA 

Prior Members 4

Elwin Kruger Operations Manager Lüderitz, Namibia 

Glenn Quelch 5 ICCAT Chief Fisheries Officer Malta 

Courtney Sakai Oceana Campaign Director/ International Washington D.C., USA 

OPWG Committee Structure:

The OPWG is comprised of four standing committees (generally made up of five members each) 

that focus on each of the four general observer professionalism areas of study. With the primary 

objectives of the working group in mind, many OPWG activities and initiatives progress in this 

committee structure and are later brought back together to produce cohesive working group 

outputs. The four OPWG Committees are: 

• Wages and Benefits: 

o Committee Members: Rueben Beazley, Anik Clemens, Keith Davis, Tracey 

Mayhew, and Ebol Rojas 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 296
o Primary Focus: remuneration policies, reimbursable items, and initiatives set to 

foster the health and general welfare of observers. 

• Support and Opportunities: 

o Committee Members: Larry Beerkircher, Dawn Golden, Jon McVeigh, Mike 

Orcutt, and Patricia Mancini. 

o Primary Focus: conflict resolution instruction, grievances procedures, counseling 

options, awarding credit where due, inclusion in professional fora, and assistance 

for observers’ professional advancement. 

• Employment Standards: 

o Committee Members: Chris Heineken, Tom Nishida, Bob Stanley, Teresa Turk, 

and Amy Van Atten. 

o Primary Focus: observer training, codes of conduct, hiring eligibility and 

competency standards, database and data collection standards, employee 

retention, and rules concerning the observer/fisher working relationships. 

• Social Equity: 

o Committee Members: Ave Eddie Agae, Shikami Kennedy Akweyu, Sara 

Monteiro, Elaine Ward, and Sara Wetmore 

o Primary Focus: identify the factors which may bring about discriminatory 

practices and social barriers in the observer workplace (based upon sex, age, 

ethnicity, or class) and recognize and promote the initiatives which foster 

equitable employment practices in the profession. 

Historical Overview: 

During the Closing Session of the 4th Conference (Sydney, 2004)6

 in the IFOMC series, a general 

consensus arose in regards to taking action to change a portion of the structure of future 

Conferences to accommodate working groups that would dig deeper among some of the “issues 

that we all wrestle with” and produce “more firm outputs” that would build upon Conference 

proceedings. In May 2006, during the off year between the 4th and the 5th (Victoria, 2007) 

Conferences, the three standing IFOMC Working Groups - Observer Safety Working Group 

(OSWG), Observer Training Working Group (OTWG), and Observer Professionalism Working 

Group (OPWG) - were established by the IFOMC Steering Committee to begin to gather together 

the international working knowledge of these important reoccurring topical areas and to help 

construct the mechanism needed for producing more focused and robust outputs. 

Throughout IFOMC history various driving themes and extended discussions have centered about 

“Observer Professionalism” topics. Many of these topics were first gathered together and 

categorized at the 2nd Conference (St. John’s, 2000), with the creation of the Observer Bill of 

Rights (OBR7

 document, formulated by way of an observer-led breakout session coupled with a 

panel session and ensuing lengthy discussion session in front of the main delegation. While the 

OBR document has never held much clout in regards to guiding policy, it has been considered by 

many to be a sort of “light on the hill” for outlining some of the basic principles that foster the 

professional development of observers, and the OPWG referenced the OBR when shaping its 

founding goals. The two Conferences that followed (New Orleans, 2002; Sydney, 2004) brought 

to light several additional observer professionalism issues that the OPWG also considered when 

charting its initial path. 

By November 2006, the OPWG was fully founded (with 16 original members) and had set a 

course for developing upon the observer professionalism information gathered at Conferences by 

establishing the means to not only continue gathering information but to further categorize and 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 297
begin to prioritize topics and to frame recommendations in order to improve the utility of this 

information for the purposes of implementation. 

In order to accommodate these goals, the OPWG initiated a survey in January 2007, primarily 

targeting 5th Conference (Victoria, 2007) delegates of various stakeholder perspectives8

. The 

primary objectives of this survey were to clarify certain common observer professionalism 

terminology and to build a more solid basis for what observer employment initiatives (organized 

by three general categories: Wages and Benefits, Support and Opportunities, and Employment 

Standards) worked well and/or were desirable for fostering the professional development of 

observers. Along with this survey, the OPWG, in cooperation with World Fisheries Trust (WFT), 

hosted an Equity in Fisheries Observer Programs Questonnaire9

 in order to gather more-specific 

information in regards to the Social Equity issues concerning fisheries observers’ employment 

practices. At the 5th Conference (Victoria, 2007), the OPWG hosted a break-out workshop where 

preliminary survey findings were presented and further information was gathered by way of 

discussions with workshop participants, and the OPWG also participated in the Closing Session 

at that Conference. In July 2008, the OPWG produced a comprehensive report10 detailing a 

complete analysis of 2007/2008 OPWG findings, a list of recommendations, and an outlook into 

the Group’s future proceedings. 

“Focused Interviews” Plan:

In November 2008, after some membership and committee restructuring, the OPWG regrouped 

for a conference call and began to set its sights for the approaching 6th IFOMC by initiating a new 

plan of action. Working off the advice offered up by Joachim (Yogi) Carolsfeld during the 

Closing Session of the 5th Conference11 and building upon internal Group discussions, the OPWG 

decided to utilize a series of “focused interviews” for its next phase of information gathering. 

The main objective with initiating these focused interviews was to dig deeper among certain 

priority12 observer professionalism topics highlighted by the Group’s 2007/2008 investigations 

(arranged by the four OPWG study areas) in order to frame more detailed, broaden-scoped 

outputs that would prove to be valuable educational references to the international fisheries 

observer and monitoring community. The overall theme for this stage of OPWG investigations 

was: 

Outlining Avenues that Foster the Recruitment and Retention of a Professional, Equitably 

Employed, Workforce of Observers

Interview Target Topics:

• Wages and Benefits: 

o Experience-based compensation - detail observer compensation systems in order 

to gain some insight into the systems that may work well for retaining 

professional experience within the profession. 

o Paid trainings, briefings, and debriefings - see what affect the presence or 

absence of “Paid trainings and debriefings” has on the livelihood of Observers 

and the retention of a professional Observer workforce. 

o Observer Benefits (i.e. Health Insurance) - exhibit various observer benefits 

systems, from a variety of programs, to see how each system affects the 

livelihood and retention of Observers. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 298
o Experience transferability - see if and how Observer experience transfers from 

one region to another or within a region and to further understand why some 

experience may transfer while other experience may not. 

o Year-round employment - see how various observer programs may foster the 

retention of a professional Observer workforce in finding a balance of 

availability of employment to their observers on a year-round basis. An important 

aspect of this topic would be to dig out how some programs may cooperate with 

other regions and fisheries to accommodate this. 

• Support and Opportunities: 

o Career Advancement - detail the types of advancement opportunities (within and 

beyond the observer profession) that exist as well as identifying desired forms of 

advancement that do not currently exist. 

o Support to attend professional fora - gauge how support (assumed as monetary 

support) to attend professional meetings (such as the IFOMC) has influence on 

the livelihood and retention of Observers. 

o Movement between observer programs - examine if the ability to easily move 

between programs is considered a major benefit to observers, and how such 

movement could be fostered. 

o Life counseling and training - see how the availability of life counseling (e.g. 

post-cruise interviews, substance abuse, relationship, financial) and life training 

(e.g. conflict resolution, sexual harassment, preparation for the isolation of sea 

life) impacts the livelihood and retention of observers. 

o Observer evaluations - see how various observer programs use observer 

evaluations; both as a means to help the observer improve his/her performance or 

to allow the observer to provide feedback to a program. 

• Employment Standards: 

o Observer/Fisher Working Relationship Standards - showcase how rules regarding 

Observer/Fisher Working Relationships are standardized among various observer 

programs. 

o Observer Code of Conduct Standards - showcase how Codes of Conduct are 

standardized among various observer programs. 

o Eligibility and Competency Standards - showcase how the Eligibility and 

Competency of recruited observers is standardized among various observer 

programs. 

o Employee Retention Standards - showcase how the retention of professional 

observer employees is evaluated and standardized among various observer 

programs. 

o Training Standards - showcase how observer trainings are standardized among 

various observer programs. 

o Debriefing Standards - showcase how debriefings (data accountability processes) 

are standardized among various observer programs. 

• Social Equity: 

o Determine how Social Equity concerns affect Observer Professionalism – to 

determine what social equity concerns specifically affect each of the three other 

OPWG areas of study. 

o Identify ways to overcome external barriers to equal employment 

o Gender-related issues 

o Ethnicity-related issues 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 299
o Identify initiatives that foster equitable employment practices among observer 

programs 

Scope of Interviewees:

The primary focus group for OPWG Focused interviews were active and prior Fisheries 

Observers, though other stakeholders (i.e. management-agency personnel, observer 

provider/contractor personnel, Observer data end-users, Observer Union personnel, fishers, 

industry personnel, NGO’s) were also encouraged to participate. 

Interview Technique:

Interviewees were asked to: 

1. Review committee focused interview plans (with interview questions listed) and to 

complete a series of Identification Questions13 prior to conducting an interview 

2. Only answer questions: 

a. That are fully comprehended; 

b. That are applicable to them and their experience; and, 

c. They are fully comfortable with answering. 

3. Consider interview questions to be open-ended and to share any information that may be 

relevant to the interview subject matter. 

4. Take notes during the interview and to fill in written responses if they felt they could 

express themselves better that way. 

5. Ask if they did not understand a particular question. 

Pre-Conference Interview Participation:

• Focused Interview Plans were finalized by January 2008 and the first interviews began 

soon thereafter.

• By March 2008, plans were made available by way of the IFOMC website14 (or by 

linking directly to the OPWG web view15 so that they could be referenced and considered 

prior to interviews. 

• In order to locate interview participants, OPWG members reached out among their 

networks and an announcement was made in the Spring 2008 Mail Buoy16. 

• Pre-conference interviews were conducted by utilizing the following techniques: in 

person, on-line correspondence, telephone, or post. Some interviews were digitally 

recorded and some were conducted over multiple correspondences.

• Approximately 45 total (amongst all four committees) interviews17 were completed prior 

to commencement of the 6th IFOMC.

6th IFOMC Observer Professionalism Workshop: 

The Observer Professionalism Working Group continued its focused interviews process with 

delegates at the 6th IFOMC by hosting a 1⁄2 day break-out session called the Observer 

Professionalism Workshop on the third day of the Conference - Thursday July 23rd, 2009: 

Observer Professionalism Workshop Logistics:

• The workshop ran currently with the plenary session and was held in a separate location 

than the main conference room.

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 300
• 08:30am to 09:00am: consisted of a brief orientation of the workshop and an audienceparticipant discussion.

• 09:30am to 12:00: The workshop room was arranged with separate stations for each of 

the four OPWG study area - Wages and Benefits, Support and Opportunities, 

Employment Standards, and Social Equity. 

• Each station was set up with recording equipment so that 2 interviews could take place at 

each station simultaneously, and each station was equipped with a poster describing the 

interview target topics for that particular area of study. 

Observer Professionalism Workshop Interview Participation:

• Delegates who attended the workshop were provided with literature describing the 

interview process and had access to each of the four committee interview plans. 

• Participants were invited to take part in each of the four interviews though were 

instructed to begin with the OPWG study area of most interest first in case there was not 

enough time to complete all interviews they had an interest in. 

• All workshop interviews were digitally recorded. 

• As soon as the orientation part of the workshop was over, interviews began. From that 

point on, generally there were two interviews taking place at each of the stations 

throughout the remainder of the workshop, and several interviews continued (with 

permission) beyond the set end-time of the workshop. 

• As the demand for interview participation was high, the two volunteer workshop 

facilitators (Mary Powers and Andy Ashley) were very busy scheduling interviews. 

Scheduling was based around a standard 1⁄2-hour time allotment and delegates could leave 

and return back at their scheduled time. 

• Some delegates did not get a chance to participate or complete their interview at the 

workshop, and we made arrangements with all of those who expressed interest to us in 

still participating to complete their interviews either during the remainder of the 

Conference or soon thereafter.

• 35 individuals signed the Observer Professionalism Workshop sign-up sheet though we 

feel that we may have missed some and that a better estimate of workshop attendance 

was approximately 50. 

• 35 separate Conference delegates - hailing from 10 different countries (including five 

regions in the USA and three regions in Canada) - completed 45 interviews during the 

workshop or during the remainder of the Conference. The majority of interviews were 

completed in English, however 2 interviews were completed in French with the help of 

volunteer translators Rebecca Lent and Azure Westwood, and several interviews were 

completed in Spanish by OPWG member Ebol Rojas.

Workshop Evaluation:

There was a broad sense of enthusiasm from participants and OPWG members alike at the 

Observer Professionalism Workshop that seemed to grow throughout the 1⁄2 day session and 

beyond. This workshop not only offered an opportunity for delegates to directly contribute to the 

workings of an international project that aims to produce some intriguing outputs, but it gave 

participants a chance to have one-on-one conversation with other delegates from around the 

world regarding issues that were important to them. 

With consideration for the set goals, the OPWG considers the 6th IFOMC Observer 

Professionalism Workshop to be a great success. In order to allow workshop participants an 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 301
opportunity to voice their likes and dislikes of the workshop and to rate the Group on 

accomplishing the set directives of the workshop, we asked all workshop attendees to complete 

an evaluation form. Though we did not receive feedback from all, a great deal of the workshop 

participants did share with us their thoughts and suggestions. The following are select 

comments18 received back from workshop participants: 

“Questions that were posed were very relevant in addressing challenges faced by observer 

programs globally.” 

 - Elwin Kruger: Operations Manager; Lüderitz, Namibia 

**************** 

“This workshop allows observers to discuss problems and resolutions individually based on their 

experiences. I think that gathering this information from individuals from various fisheries 

working for various programs gives us all the opportunity to view some of the concerns on a 

broader scale and see how some of these concerns are similar from region to region. 

 - Chris Stoehr: Fisheries Observer, Pacific Islands, USA 

**************** 

“Enough time, space and commitment was not allocated to this workshop/objective...” 

 - Ken Barabash: Fisheries Observer, West Coast, Canada 

Focused Interviews Outputs: 

The OPWG Focused Interview process is now officially over19, however there is a great deal of 

work to be done before any output or findings will be published from this phase of the Group’s 

information gathering. Collectively, amongst all of the four OPWG study areas, we have 

collected approximately 90 interviews. These interviews have been compiled in many different 

formats, ranging from email correspondences and hand-written remarks to digitally recorded 

vocal tracks. 

Though we aim to preserve all interviews in their original formats, our primary task in the coming 

months will be to generate digital transcripts of all interviews so that we may consider and utilize 

them equitably in regards to producing final outputs from this project. Some interviews (primarily 

pre-conference interviews) are already in a digital transcript format. However, there are 

approximately 30 hours of recorded interviews that need to be digitally transcribed, and we are 

presently unsure as to how long this process will take. To not only expedite the transcription 

process but to also preserve a reliable quality of all interviews, we are presently considering 

several options and sources of funding in order to have a professional service conduct 

transcriptions of the recorded interviews. 

After we have compiled all interviews into a complimentary digital transcript format, the OPWG 

will need to spend several months exploring this wealth of information and begin making 

considerations for molding the outputs from this phase. The OPWG focused interview questions 

will help us with the preliminary steps to framing the outputs, though we imagine that there may 

be information brought about in the interviews that reaches beyond the questions asked. 

Consequently, we aim to mainly frame outputs as an exhibition of the interview responses rather 

than by the interview questions that had been asked. We will also utilize responses to the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 302
Identification Questions for helping us to categorize particular interview responses by such 

general classifications as: Fisheries Observer stakeholder perspective, gender, ethnicity, 

experience, region/country/program, etc. 

The Group’s vision for producing final outputs to this project is two fold: 

1. 2010 OPWG Report: a complete report, arranged into chapters centered about general 

groupings of the collected information from the interviews, arranged in such a fashion as 

to serve as a useful educational reference. This Report will comprehensively detail all 

findings from the Group’s Focused Interview stage and will include associated resources 

and recommendations. 

2. Observer Professionalism Outreach Pamphlet: this pamphlet will be a concise 

synopsis of the 2010 OPWG Report. Our idea for this is to generate a quick-guide to 

Observer Professionalism (laminated, visually stimulating, pamphlet) that can be sent out 

to all know observer programs around the world and be widely used as an educational 

device. 

Our outlook for completing both of these outputs is mid/late 2010. We will keep the 6th IFOMC 

delegation and all other interview participants apprised of all outputs that are produced from this 

phase of the OPWG’s work. 

In the meantime, here is a selection of excerpts from OPWG Focused Interviews to give you a 

taste of what is to come: 

“You have to train them (Observers) to be assertive.” 

 - Joost Pompert: Observer Program Staff; Falkland Islands 

**************** 

“Once you prove yourself (as an observer) that you can handle it mentally and physically, there 

are plenty of opportunities.” 

 - Steve Todd: Fisheries Observer; West Coast, USA 

**************** 

“As observers, we like to jump around and keep our options open, and the biggest issue is 

cooperation among the programs (to foster this movement/transferability).” 

 - Brooks Doughtie: Fisheries Observer; Southeast, USA 

**************** 

"Each observer program (in the USA) has developed their own system for promotion, so there is 

no standardization in that regard...” 

 - Dennis Hansford; National Observer Program; USA 

**************** 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 303
“I was lucky enough to get my Hawaii and Alaska (Observer) experience consolidated, though I 

know that some people have had trouble with transferring their experience.” 

 - Melanie Haggard: Fisheries Observer; Alaska and Pacific Islands, USA 

**************** 

“It is practical and reasonable for training staff to bring up the fact that minorities exist in the 

class and every class. Perhaps a short handbook or information would help...” 

 - Anonymous 

**************** 

“Debriefing is probably the most critical part of my job... I believe 100% that debriefing should 

be mandatory for any program.” 

 - Wayne DeGruchy: Fisheries Observer; Newfoundland, Canada 

**************** 

"I feel that any type of benefits, especially health insurance, would be incentive to continue.” 

- Brant O'Dell; Marine Mammal Fisheries Observer; Gulf of Mexico, USA 

**************** 

“Sexual harassment can happen both ways, even if a married, masculine man...” 

 - Anonymous 

Working Group Outlook: 

Vision for the 7th IFOMC:

Though we are currently (and will still be for quite some time) primarily concerned with 

completing the outlined outputs, we have had a chance to briefly discuss some of our thoughts for 

how we may progress in respect to the next IFOMC. Some members consider that our efforts may 

be best suited by hosting a plenary panel session centered about presenting topics associated with 

Observer Professionalism (not necessarily direct findings of the OPWG, but associated topics). 

This is simply a proposed idea at this point and will be discussed in further detail in our published 

outputs next year. 

New OPWG Member Recruitment:

The OPWG is made up of 20 members. While we expect that the majority of OPWG members 

will chose to retain their roles with the Group, with the transition from completing the 6th IFOMC 

and beginning to set sites for the 7th IFOMC, we anticipate a certain amount of attrition in our 

membership. Over the next couple of months, we will ask all of the OPWG to confirm their 

membership with the Group and at the same time begin actively recruiting for new membership. 

We are looking for new members from the international community who have a keen interest in 

working towards initiatives that, as our mission states, “fosters the proficient professional 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 304
development of fisheries observers.” We are always looking to expand upon our perspective and 

geographic representation, though enthusiasm (for the subject-matter) and time devotion are both 

important factors to us in recruiting new members. Our members’ experience ranges from 

someone with 30 years of experience in a well-developed observer program to a member from an 

area of the world where their observer program is still just on the drawing board. We are proud of 

the diverse group of folks we currently have on the OPWG and look at this transition as an 

opportunity to expand upon that diversity. 

If you have any interest in joining the Observer Professionalism Working Group please feel free 

to send us your resume/ C.V. and a Letter of Intent, telling us how you can add to the OPWG. 

Important Information: 

The OPWG on-line Resources: 

To review all public OPWG resources or to provide feedback in regards to the continued work of 

the OPWG (via Public Forums) please navigate to the OPWG web view: http://www.apoobservers.org/ifomc/opwg.php 

OPWG Point of Contact: Keith Davis: lblegend@yahoo.com 

Acknowledgments: 

We’d like to thank Dennis Hansford, Dan Morris, and all of the 6th IFOMC organizers for making 

the Observer Professionalism Workshop possible and for assisting with many other OPWG 

needs. Many thanks go to Rebecca Lent and Azure Westwood for acting as French translators 

during the workshop so that delegates from Senegal and Morocco could complete interviews in 

their native tongue. We would also like to acknowledge the help of two Fisheries Observer 

volunteers - Mary Powers and Andy Ashley. Mary and Andy acted as Workshop Facilitators, 

helping us with orienting folks as they entered into the workshop and with the scheduling of 

interviews. Last but far from least, we would like to acknowledge all of those who have taken the 

time to participate in OPWG Focused Interviews. We hope that you all will be pleased with the 

eventual outputs that your gracious efforts have contributed to. Thank you all very much for 

helping make the OPWG Focused Interview process a success!

Notes: 

1. For a complete listing of all OPWG Terms of Reference, outputs, project updates, and to share any 

Public Input please navigate to the following web link: http://www.apo-observers.org/ifomc/opwg.php 

2 Ave Eddie Agae retired from the Group just before the 6th Conference in July 2009. 

3. Teresa Turk co-founded the OPWG in October 2006 with Keith Davis and served as the OPWG Steering 

Committee Liaison (SCL) from then until the close of the 5th Conference (Victoria, 2007). Thereafter, she 

has served as an OPWG member. 

4. All “prior members” were members of the OPWG for the 5th IFOMC in Victoria, May 2007. 

5. Glenn Quelch co-Chaired with Keith Davis from May 2008 till August 2008, when he retired from the 

Group. 

6. Mcvea, T.A, Kennelly, S.J. 2005. Proceedings of the 4th International Fisheries Observer 

Conference. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Cronulla Fisheries Research Center of Excellence, 

Cronulla, Australia. ISBN 1 9209 12 20 2. 230pp. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ifomc2009/4th%20IFOC%20Proceedings%20Sydney.pdf 

7. Link to the Observer Bill of Rights document at: www.apo-observers.org/docs/ObserverBillofRights.pdf 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 305
8. Of the 45 respondents to the OPWG Survey (http://apo-observers.org/docs/2007_OPWG_Survey.pdf): 

12 different countries were represented; 61% were Observers; 30% were agency Staff members; 7% were 

Data Analyst/end users; and 2% were from a source Other than these options. 

9. Link to the Equity in Fisheries Observer Programs Questionnaire at: 

http://apo- observers.org/docs/WFT5thIFOMCQuestionnaire.pdf 

10. Link to the 2008 Observer Professionalism Working Group Report: http://apoobservers.org/docs/IFOC_OPWG_Report_2008.pdf 

11.McVea, T.A and Kennelly, S.J. (ed.), 2007. Proceedings of the 5th International Fisheries 

 Observer Conference –15 – 18 May 2007, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. NSW Department of 

Primary Industries, Cronulla. Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence, Cronulla, Australia, 412 pp. ISBN 

978 0 7347 1861 7. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ifomc2009/Proceedings_ALL_FINAL_170907.pdf 

12.Priority topics for this stage were carefully selected from the “Analysis Highlights” of 2007/2008 

OPWG Investigations (See the 2008 OPWG Report) based on two criteria: 1. the need for further 

investigations into a topic in order to make more-detailed recommendations, and 2. to limit selection of 

topics to a manageable amount to ensure a high quality of outputs to theses investigations. With this is 

mind, some “Analysis Highlights” from the 2008 OPWG Report were not selected for this stage. 

13. Identification Questions were in regards to gender, ethnicity, stakeholder perspective, and experience 

(sea days, gear types, region(s), country(s), program(s)). Interviewees were encouraged to only answer 

questions they felt comfortable with answering and were instructed that they could remain anonymous if 

they so desired. 

14. www.ifomc.com 

15.http://www.apo-observers.org/ifomc/opwg.php 

16.APO. 200. Mail Buoy. Spring 2009; 12(1). A quarterly newsletter of the Association for Professional 

Observers (APO). Link: http://www.apo-observers.org/mailbuoy/Spring09MB.pdf 

17. This is an approximate estimation being that some interviews that were initiated prior to the Conference 

were completed after the Conference or are still in the process of being completed. 

18. A more-complete synopsis of Observer Professionalism Workshop evaluations will be reported in the 

final output of this stage of the Group’s work. 

19. Though the OPWG Focused Interview process is officially over, some interviews (either initiated prior 

to the Conference or by way of contacts made at the 6th IFOMC) are still in the process of completion (as 

of September 2009). 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 306
Moving Sushi: A Marine Resource Expedition 

Mike@marine-expedition.co.na 

Linda@marine-expedition.co.na 

The 6th International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference was very fortunate to have 

two passionate and inspiring individuals present a video documentary of their expedition through 

Africa, Europe, and Asia. Moving Sushi team leaders Mike Markovina and Linda Schonknecht 

are trekking across three continents and through over 40 countries. Mike and Linda presented to 

the conference attendants a look at their impressive journey on Monday (7/20/09) and Thursday 

(7/23/09). The movie focused on the management, monitoring, and enforcement of marine 

fisheries they discovered in the countries they have visited. The documentary captures the state of 

marine resources and communities which are affected by marine resource management decisions 

and how we as a people can sustain healthy fisheries around the globe. At the time of their video 

presentation at the conference, their journey had not yet brought them through Asia and East 

Africa. Once their global tour is completed, a final film version will be shown on television. Stay 

tuned! The conference video was a partial glimpse at their amazing trip. Their expedition 

concentrates “at contributing to marine conservation by gathering information and filming a 

holistic and objective documentary aimed at the following 1. 

• Revealing the positive side of marine resource use through conservation, with 

major focus on marine protected areas, their successes or failures and their 

impacts on society. 

• Gathering information from all stakeholders in the resource, i.e. fishermen, 

government, conservation NGO’S, industry and other to understand holistically 

the state of the resource and to document positive conservation initiatives 

associated with the resource. 

• Gauging potential biodiversity by underwater observation of different habitats in 

and outside marine protected areas in the immediate and or surrounding areas of 

filming. 

• The development of potential aquaculture, and its associated impacts on 

economies and society1

 .                                                                          

Core Leaders Mike (Expedition Leader) and Linda (expedition photographer and filming 

coordinator) both from South Africa and graduates of Rhodes University in South Africa will 

televise the 13 part documentary series of their expedition in 2011. In their own words, “The 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 307
Marine Resource Expedition hopes to create awareness to marine resource conservation on a 

global scale by inspiring people through the ambitious nature of the project. Through our monthly 

magazine publications we have generated a global following of the expedition. We are currently 

in discussion with a PR company to increase our international media coverage through adverts, 

seminars and media launches1

.” 

Team Leaders Linda and Mike in Norway 

Photo Credit: Moving Sushi Website

The Steering Committee would like to thank Teresa Turk for coordinating Mike and Linda’s 

appearance at the conference, and would like to extend a warm and sincere thanks to Mike and 

Linda for putting their expedition on hold and flying half way around the world to attend the 6th

International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference. Their passion for marine resource 

conservation certainly inspired all that had a chance to view the video presentation or meet them 

in person. A quote from Mike and Linda’s presentation and noted by Steve Kennelly revealed a 

positive view on facing and overcoming difficulties and challenges, and reaching goals. 

“Being inspired about the positive allows us to tackle the negative with inspired minds.” Mike 

and Linda’s travels can be followed on their website: http://www.marine-expedition.co.za/ 

Thank you to Mike Markovina and Linda Schonknecht for your inspirational presentation and we 

wish you safe travels. 

Notes: 

1. Moving Sushi Website http://www.marine-expedition.co.za/

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 308
Safety Room IFOMC 2009 

The 2009 International Fisheries Observer and Monitoring Conference (IFOMC) Safety Room 

was a joint effort between National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United 

States Coast Guard (USCG), West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP), NE Fisheries 

Observer Program (NEFOP), Observer Training Center, McMillian Offshore Survival Training, 

Rodney Avila, and fisheries observers from around the world 

The goals of the safety room were to highlight the importance of observer safety, foster a stronger 

safety culture, and to educate observers & program staff. As in the past the space was filled with 

safety equipment, safety related posters, and volunteers to answer questions. New this year were 

safety videos being screened at breaks and a workshop on training vessel drills and flooding 

damage control techniques. 

Everything from EPIRBs (emergency position indicating radio beacon) and immersion suits to 

liferafts and PFDs (personal flotation device) were available to touch, test and inspect. The 

poster topics ranged from conflict resolution and hearing/eye damage to helicopter rescue and the 

importance of ‘hands on’ safety training. The room itself became a meeting place for observers, 

safety trainers and staff from both established and developing observer programs. Trainers and 

observers from different programs were able to network and share experiences. These 

connections have already led to multiple cross training opportunities and the sharing of training 

materials between programs. 

The Safety Workshop was conducted to offer support and encourage the use of onboard drills 

during observer safety training. It brought observers and trainers together to learn from each 

other and share ideas. The workshop started off with lectures and discussion on training 

emergency procedures, station bills and the logistics of setting up vessel drills. After the 

discussion, the group participated in “mock” drills, damage control training, and ultimately in 

onboard vessel drills. 

This year the safety room was a great resource for observer program staff and observers. Some 

participants were introduced to new materials and teaching techniques while others were able to 

foster new and existing connections. Having the safety equipment available for ‘hands on’ 

learning and the extensive collective knowledge in one place is invaluable. We would like to 

continue to advance the IFOMC Safety Room at future conference. Please send any suggestions 

to John.LaFargue@noaa.gov. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 309
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 310
6th IFOMC Tuna Transshipment Observer Program (TTOP) Meetings 

Edited by: Bryan Belay1 and Keith G. Davis2

MRAG Americas, Alaska 

 U.S.A.1 

Fisheries Observer/ Association for Professional Observers (APO) 

 USA 2

Abstract: 

The goal of the Tuna Transhipment Observer Program (TTOP) meetings at the 6th IFOMC were 

to begin to assemble the collective working knowledge and resources of a variety of interested 

stakeholders in the worldwide network of tuna transshipment fisheries observer programs and to 

set the stage for the creation of a standing working group that could outline some common 

practices that may be harmonized across programs and help pave the way for heightened 

communications and information sharing. 

Meeting Participants:

TTOP Meeting Facilitator: 

Bryan Belay Observer Provider, MRAG Americas Anchorage, AK USA 

Attendees: 

Ernesto Altamirano 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 

(IATTC) La Jolla, CA USA 

Joe Arceneaux Observer Training Coordinator, PIROP Honolulu, Hawaii USA 

Kim Blankenbeker 

NMFS/OAA, Foreign Affairs (ICCAT 

representative) 

Silver Springs, MD 

USA 

Evan Casey Fisheries Observer Honolulu, Hawaii USA 

Keith Davis Fisheries Observer (IATTC); APO USA 

Dawn Golden Observer Trainer/ Debriefer, PIROP Honolulu, Hawaii USA 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 311
Chris Heinecken 

Observer Provider, Capricorn Fisheries 

Monitoring 

Cape Town, South 

Africa 

John Kelly Observer Program Director, PIROP Honolulu, Hawaii USA 

Rebecca Lent NMFS/OAA, Director, Foreign Affairs 

Silver Springs, MD 

USA 

Tsutomu Nishida International Fisheries Research (IOTC Rep.) Shizuoka, Japan 

Graeme Parkes Observer Provider, MRAG Ltd. 

London, United 

Kingdom 

Mary Powers Fisheries Observer (IATTC) 

Anchorage, Alaska 

USA 

Ebol Rojas Fisheries Observer (ICCAT, IOTC); APO Eureka, California USA 

Bob Trumble Observer Provider, MRAG Americas St. Petersburg, FL USA 

Teresa Turk 

USA International Observer Program 

Coordinator 

Silver Spring, MD, 

USA 

Background:

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing contributes to overfishing and “undermines 

efforts to conserve and manage fish stocks in all capture fisheries”2

. In 2001, the Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations initiated the International Plan of Action 

to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate, Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU). 

A major component of the supporting infrastructure for distant water fishing fleets (i.e. largescale longline and purse seine vessels) on the high seas consists of at-sea transhipment activities. 

Transhipment operations allow fishing vessels on the high-seas to continue to fish without 

needing to return to a seaport when their holds are full (APO, 2007)3

. Vessels can stay at sea for 

extended periods of time: off-loading their catches, refueling, rotating crews, and re-supplying 

bait, food, and water - all facilitated via at-sea transshipment operations. It is generally accepted 

that a common means of conducting IUU fishing is by way of unreported or misreported 

transhipment operations. 

In direct regards to the role played by at-sea transhipment and resupply (“support”) vessels to the 

operation of IUU fleets, the IPOA-IUU states the following: 

“48. Flag States should ensure that their fishing, transport and support vessels do not support or 

engage in IUU fishing. To this end, flag States should ensure that none of their vessels re-supply 

fishing vessels engaged in such activities or tranship fish to or from these vessels. This 

paragraph is without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action, as necessary, for 

humanitarian purposes, including the safety of crew members. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 312
49. Flag States should ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, all of their fishing, transport 

and support vessels involved in transhipment at sea have a prior authorization to tranship issued 

by the flag State...” 

The importance of regulating at-sea transhipment operations, via establishing Monitoring Control 

and Surveillance (MCS) measures (i.e. Vessel Monitoring Systems and on-board observers) 

implemented by the relevant Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO)s, was 

further detailed by a 2004 UN General Assembly resolution4

. The UN: 

“Recognizes that common means of conducting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing 

involves the unreported or misreported transhipments of fish at sea and urges States, either 

directly or through relevant sub-regional and regional fisheries management organizations and 

arrangements, to establish comprehensive systems, where appropriate, for monitoring and 

control of transshipments on the high seas.” 

The five RFMOs responsible for the management of tuna transshipment operations in their 

respective management areas around the world are: International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) - Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea; Inter-American 

Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) - Eastern Pacific Ocean; Western-Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission (WCPFC) - Western and Central Pacific Ocean; Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 

(IOTC) - the Indian Ocean; and, Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna 

(CCSBT) – Southern Ocean. 

According to the report on the 21st Meeting of the Parties (MOP) 1, June 5th 2009, “All the tuna 

RFMOs except WCPFC have on-board observer programs for transshipments at sea,” and “the 

CCSBT program will begin operations this year.” In the spring of 2009, a few months following 

the inception of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) Tuna Transhipment 

Observer Program (TTOP) in the Pacific2

, several people of various stakeholder perspectives 

began discussing some ideas for how this young program could be strengthened and most 

effective at reaching its management objectives. 

Because carrier/transhipment vessels (and operators/companies) work on a largely international 

inter-RFMO basis, there is an important need for conservation and management measures to at 

least harmonize TTOP initiatives on an international inter-RFMO basis. Being that the tuna 

RFMOs generally have many of the “same objectives and purposes”3

 concerning the monitoring 

of at-sea transshipments, especially in regards to Large Scale Tuna Longline Vessels LSTLVs 

trading with tuna carrier vessels, some see this essentially as a “worldwide observer program”. 

Our discussions in the spring led to the realization that many interested TTOP stakeholders were 

scheduled to be in attendance at the 6th IFOMC and that we should take advantage of this great 

opportunity to meet, share ideas, expand upon prior discussions, and begin an iterative process for 

harmonizing certain basic TTOP implementation principles. 

TTOP Meeting Results:

We had initially scheduled one 1-hour meeting for the morning of the second day of the 

Conference, though discussions carried over and we had another 1-hour meeting the following 

morning. Meeting participants were of a variety of stakeholder vantages (Observers, contractors, 

debriefer/trainers, RFMO representatives, and other international interests), and three of the five 

tuna RFMOs had representation at this meeting. 

In this first step, we (TTOP Meeting participants) have identified some useful program tools and 

desirable program-implementation practices that could be further considered: 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 313
• TTOP Working Group- Create a working group made up of a variety of TTOP 

stakeholders around the world to: further discussions, share findings, analyze observer 

program implementation commonalities, and to reach out to and help guide all Tuna 

Transhipment Observer Programs to successful ends. 

• TTOP Training Manual- Establish a single manual and include addendums that outline 

specific requirements for each of the tuna RFMOs. 

• TTOP Frozen Fish Identification Guide- building on the ID deck sheet produced by 

James Clark (MRAG Ltd.) for the ICCAT program, construct a comprehensive frozen 

fish identification guide to help observers identify frozen fish products. 

• Standardize TTOP sampling priorities and protocols and outline basic TTOP training, 

briefing, and debriefing standards 

• Standardize TTOP data Forms and Reports and data-reporting methodology 

• Establish a single TTOP observer certification process so that a TTOP Observer certified 

by one tuna RFMO would be certified to work as a TTOP Observer in another tuna 

RFMO. 

o Develop a list of certified TTOP observers with easy access for contractors 

through a secure web location. This would facilitate the transit of TTOP 

observers from one region to another (as many trips occur in multiple RFMOs), 

and would save contractors money (as far as training and logistics are 

concerned). 

• Develop a standard set of conversions for estimating product weight from measured 

lengths and for converting dressed/product weight. 

• Test Electronic Monitoring (video/photo) as an aide for observers to later verify their 

direct observations. A mounted system that can be left unattended during the 

transhipment operations would be most desirable, so as to not distract from other TTOP 

observer duties. 

• Develop an inter-RFMO photo database of all LSTLVs as a resource that all RFMOs can 

build upon and utilize for tracking vessels more effectively. 

• Investigate further the use of genetic sampling for positive identification of species and 

possibly the geographic area caught. 

• Establish protocols for sharing information from one program to another. 

• Expose the various end-uses of TTOP observer data, outlining limitations as well as 

potential new uses. 

• Provide recommendations to the RFMO’s: 

o Standardize Transhipment declaration forms 

o Look into standardizing LSTLV logbooks 

o Standardize fish labeling requirements and protocols 

o Eliminate nationality restrictions in regards to hiring fisheries observers. 

TTOP Meeting Conclusions:

Discussions were very good and the largest gripe was that we did not allot more time at the 

Conference to develop further upon these discussions. Nevertheless, we see these meetings as a 

beginning to what could prove to be a very productive long-term cooperation. We plan to work 

towards establishing a TTOP Working Group, building off of the results from these 6th IFOM 

TTOP Meetings. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 314
TTOP Meeting Contacts:

Bryan Belay (Primary Contact) bryan.belay@mragamericas.com; Keith Davis 

lblegend@yahoo.com; and Joe Arceneaux stuart.arceneaux@noaa.gov 

Notes: 

1. There were two TTOP meetings during the 6th IFOMC. The majority of attendees were at both meetings, 

however two who were at the 1st were not at the 2nd and there was one additional attendee at the 2nd. 

2. FAO. 2001. International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate, Illegal Unreported and 

Unregulated Fishing. Rome, FAO. 27p. Link: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/y1224e/y1224e00.HTM 

3. APO. 2007. “MCS Observers on board at-sea Transshipment Vessels”, Ebol Rojas. Article in the Fall 

2007 edition of the Mail Buoy, a publication of the Association for Professional Observers (APO). Volume 

10(3). October 2007. Link: www.apo-observers.org/mailbuoy/2007-fall.pdf 

4. WCPFC. 2005. First Meeting of the Technical and Compliance Committee of the Commission for the 

Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific 

Ocean.WCPFC/TCC1/17. December 2005. 3p. Link: www.wcpfc.inc 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 315
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 316
Appendices 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 317
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 318
Appendix 1 

Detailed Paper Submitted by Meke Soung Pierre Nolasque 

The scientific observers programme as a tool for sustainable management of the 

marine trawl fishing in Cameroon 

Dr Meke Soung Pierre Nolasque, Veterinary, Economist (MA )1 

Head of the Brigade of Control and Surveillance of Fishing Activities 

Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal Industries 

Cameroon 

Cameroon with almost 17,476,497 inhabitants, presents a costal length of 402 Km which is the 

core of intense fishing activities. It is a multi-species fishing, contributing to 1.7 percent to GDP, 

(2003). The various stocks assessments surveys conducted since 1982 to 2007, show an 

overexploitation of the costal resource (Jens Otto et al., 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). Due the 

business environment (poor national investment) and the decrease of the resource base, most of 

the vessels in the region and from abroad buy fishing licenses in two or three countries since the 

early 1990s. This situation, combined with Cameroon self ban on exports of shrimp products to 

Europe Union countries, has led to fraudulent exports, contributing to heavy losses in terms of 

export taxes estimated at 2 billion CFAF/annum since 2002. The losses from poor landing and 

declaration of catches (IUU fishing) were estimated at 15 billion CFAF per annum for around 

1044 m.tons of shrimps and 4 billion CFAF for fish 10067 m. tons (Meke, 2007). Meanwhile a 

study on economic and financial performances of the trawl marine fishery demonstrated that the 

industry was operating at lost, while the fish price (1265 cfaF/kg), is above the poverty line (1 

US$/ day) and thus high for the society ( Meke and Njifondjou, 2007). 

The Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal industries is responsible of the fishery policy 

through licensing. However, there have been an increasing number of vessels. No closed season 

has been decided yet. Economic objectives of the fisheries have never been considered. Law 

enforcement, one of the weaknesses of the management has gone through important changes with 

the creation of Monitoring, Control and Surveillance of fishing Activities Brigade; launching a 

vessel monitoring system (VMS), with satellite Argos and a plan against illegal and unreported 

fishing (IUU) has been validated. Within the framework of the GEF/UNEP/ 201/project, 

Cameroon experienced two years scientific observations on some shrimpers. In 2009, three 

scientific observers, embarked also on board of trawlers. This contributed in building a 

knowledge base on by- catches and discards from shrimp trawlers and Chinese pair trawlers. 

The objective of the study was to evaluate the current management tools in use or expected in the 

fishery and the consistency with the fishery policy. For that purpose, an estimate of the costs and 

benefits/advantages of each management instrument strategy is conducted separately and 

projected for a ten year period. While cost of the Control and VMS are based on actual facts, 

estimates for running an observer programme are based on the two experiences mentioned. 

Findings of the study indicate that benefits from the management tools do not compensate the 

cost of their implementation neither on a yearly basis nor in the long run, a situation lasting since 

many decades, and that the management tools are yet to protect fish resources on a sustainable 

basis. In management strategies, the government should investment on VMS, and a full observer 

programme, associated with a light sea patrols along the three mile area. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 319
Key words: Scientific observers programme; sustainable management; fishing effort, biological 

and socio-economic data. 

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNG SITUATION 

THE PROBLEM 

Cameroon’s population in 2008 was estimated at 17476497 inhabitants (population growth rate of 

2.8 % in 2003). The costal length of 402 Km is the core of intense fishing activities. It is a marine 

multi-species fishing with shrimp trawls, fish trawls in the industrial fishing; purse seining in the 

semi-industrial fishing with almost 100 wooden or plank canoes; gill nets in the artisanal sector, 

24 635 fishermen using 7335 canoes (surface, and bottom and cast nets...). Marine fishing 

production is estimated at 65 000 m. tons and fishing activities as a whole contribute at 1.7 

percent to GDP, (2003) and per Capita fish product consumption is estimated at 17.9 Kg. GDP 

was estimated at 9077.7 billion CFAF, with a real growth rate of 3.5 % in 2006. The demand was 

estimated at 298.000 tons and fish imports represent 52.9 percent of total supply (126 000 tons) 

leading to a deficit of 24.4 CFAF billion on the trade balance. 

The fish catch is dominated by the scianid community of Longhurst, in which eight species 

contribute to 80 % of the main demersal landings of the Cameroon continental shelf and belong to 

the following families: Ariideas, Cynoglossidae, Polynemidea, and Scianids. Almost 81.3 % of 

catches are made at depths less than 20 meters with 98.2 % of species from swampy/muddy and 

sandy bottoms17. The catch composition was almost the same base on landings data with croakers

(45 %); Arius sp (15%) Pentaneamus quinquarius (16%) Sphyraena sp (17 %) Trichurus sp (2%) 

in 200414.Using the analytical model of Ricker, Njock, 1990, demonstrated that any increase of 

long term production may only result from an increase of the mesh size with or not any change on 

fishing effort, and that the MSY was 17600 tons for an optimal fishing effort Fopt of 5200 fishing 

days and that the demersal resources were overfished since 1978. Since the 1970’s to date, there 

has been a constant change in the fishing effort strategy with shrimp vessels dominant (38) on 

average against (11) trawlers and where trawlers were converted into shrimpers using small 33 

cm mesh sizes. 

During the 2004 third session of the scientific sub-committee of the Fishery committee for the 

eastern central Atlantic held in Togo, the working group conducted stock assessment based on a 

variety of methods including analysis of long-term trends in fishery data ( landings, effort, catch 

per unit of effort (CPUE); fishery-independent surveys. The group came up with the following 

results with regard to some main fishes in Cameroon: for Pseudotolithus spp; Galeoides 

decadactylus, Cynoglossus spp, there was uncertainty in the assessment and the main 

recommendation was that fishing effort should not be increased until new assessment is carried 

out. In the case of Penaeus notialis, the main export product was overexploited and that current 

fishing effort should be reduced2

. Other stocks assessments surveys conducted since 1982 and 

from 2004 to 2007 using the oceanographic vessel Fridtjoff Nansen show an overexploitation of 

the costal resource 9,10,11. The only way of increasing fish production will rely on the exploitation 

of deep sea demersal resources where Sparids (Dentex sp), Ariommatideas (Ariomma.sp) are 

abundant but not included on actual landings statistics14,15. 

The Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal industries is responsible for the fishery policy 

through licensing. However, there have been an increasing number of vessels. No closed season 

has been decided yet. Economic objectives of the fisheries have never been considered. No 

notable economic regulation such as buy-back programme, tax regulation, restriction of fishing 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 320
capital or fishing effort in trawl fishery has been put in place. Since the early nineties (1920), the 

management technique include mesh size regulation and licensing. The fishery law has been 

reviewed to replace the 1982 law in 1994, which has also been reviewed to include additional 

management tools such as BRDs and TEDs (By catch reducing devices) and Turtle excludes 

Devices in the shrimp trawl fishery. 

For law enforcement, the creation of Monitoring Control and Surveillance body in the 

Department of fisheries and Aquaculture is very recent and effective since 2005 and the 

equipment is coming gradually. Since 1920, the data collection system is the same. Formerly, 

landings data from vessels were collected at Douala, and very recently at Tiko or Kribi ports, 

based only on the declaration of captains, which is not enough monitor fishing operations and 

thus stock assessment using catch and effort data. Declared statistics have shown a sharp drop on 

landings from 10 000 tons to less than 3200 t when actually the number of vessels is almost the 

same. This situation contrasts with the results of an investigation conducted in 2007 on board of 

time-charter vessels at Limbe, where estimates with the 64 boats give 87 tons of shrimps/month 

and 1044 tons of shrimps per year and 10067 tons of fish (mainly, croakers, and soles) based on 

839 tons of fish/month. 

Even though, there have been some scarce sea patrols at Douala, it is under the South West 

Development Authority (SOWEDA) project in 2007 that there has been a regular scheme of sea 

patrols to control and protect the three mile area allocated to small scale fishermen. Cameroon 

also experienced scientific observers from 2004 to 2006 within the framework of a FAO project, 

“Reduction of the environmental impact of shrimp trawl fishing through the introduction of bycatch reducing devices and change of management strategies”, limited to shrimp trawlers. In 

2009, a trial of scientific observers was also conducted on trawlers during one month; three 

scientific observers monitored 3 couple of Chinese boats. 45 hauls over 22 fishing days were 

registered; 4hours for a haul and 4 hours for fish selection, out of 125 tons of fish selected for 

trade, 46 tons were juveniles of by-catches. 

A study under the REBYC project was conducted in 2007 to evaluate economic and financial 

performances of the trawl fishery came up with the following results: the fuel and lubricant 

represent 69 % of total costs. This dramatic situation is confirmed by the ROI, -0. 2% and the 

NP/TE ratio, – 0. 09 showing that the local industry is operating at loss, since the returns for each 

100 CFAF invested are negative. This situation has led to the increase of the fish price 1 270 

CFAF on average, ie 2.54 US $, when actually, the poverty line is 1 US $ per day, meaning that 

the cost of the industrial fishing is too high for the society, the middleman16. As a result, in 2006, 

the President of the Republic signed an ordinance to cancel VAT on imported fish products 

among others and due to economic importance and high value of the target species, depressed 

catch rates and economic returns are experienced which necessitates the need for effective 

management. A study to establish a plan against illegal and unreported fishing (IUU) has been 

conducted in 2008 and not yet fully implemented. 

In the rationale for the efficient and cost effective management objective, it is explained that if a 

fishery is to be exploited in an economically efficient manner, then the administration of fisheries 

management must also be undertaken in a cost effective manner. For all the administrative 

functions that are undertaken- licensing, surveillance, logbook collections or general 

administration- the amounts spent should provide, at the margin, benefits which at least match the 

costs of undertaking the activity. Furthermore, an equivalent amount spent on a different 

management function should not yield a greater benefit. These are general principles which 

underlie the efficient allocation of inputs to any economic activity6

. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 321
Objectives of the study: 

The overall objective of this paper is to contribute to sustainable management of fish resources in 

Cameroon. Specifically, the aim of this paper is: to evaluate the current management tools in use 

or expected in the fishery and the consistency with the fishery policy. 

Methodology 

To achieve the objective of the study, we examine the industrial fishing sector, the actual 

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and constraints of the fishery policy and current 

management strategies and instruments. An estimate of the costs and benefits/advantages of each 

management instrument strategy separately is conducted. While cost of the Control and VMS are 

based on actual facts, estimates for running an observer programme are based on the two 

experiences mentioned. All the costs are projected on a ten years period. 

II Description of the marine industrial fishery sector; 

The coast line of 402 km length is the core of intense fishing activities for a production estimated 

at 72 200 m tons, 9700 mt for the industrial fishery and 63 000 mt for the small scale fishery in 

the early 2000. Both industrial and artisanal fisheries exploit almost the same fishing grounds, 

where the dominant species are the sciaenid community of Longhurst. These common fishing 

grounds are at the center of conflicts between the two groups. Even though, Cameroon fish 

production comes from the marine artisanal and industrial fishery; the continental or inland water 

bodies (lakes and rivers), this paper will focus on the marine industrial sector only. 

II.1Type of vessels, fishing gears and techniques: 

Two kinds of vessels are encountered: the shrimpers targeting shrimps and trawlers for fishes. All 

of them are bottom trawlers. Even though the law makes a difference according to the cod end 

mesh size (56mm for shrimpers and 70mm for trawlers), fishing grounds are the same, which 

contributes in the catch of juveniles and a huge amount of by-catch and discards. Most of the 

vessels are 10 to 20 years old. Three kinds of nets or techniques are encountered: a single trawl is 

pulled by a vessel; beam trawler with one or pair trawl by side, mainly for shrimpers and 

trawlers18. The pair trawling, where two boats pull one net, introduced in the late 1995’by 

Chinese operators. From the 1970s to date, the fishery operates through constant change of 

strategy with an average of 38 shrimpers for a production of 882 mt of shrimps; 11 trawlers and a 

production of 11 291 m.tons. 

II.2 Landings: 

From the sixties to the early 2000’s all landings were registered at Douala port. According to the 

fishery law, three days ahead, the manager of the company declares arrival of the boat at the port 

to enable fish quality inspection and size control during the landing by the veterinary and fishery 

services. Whole sellers bring their isotherm trucks to load the fish to their stores. A control of the 

captain logbook is organized to check the fishing grounds, the coordinates and the duration of the 

sea trip. Most of vessels operate in the so called bare boat charter system where landings are 

barely declared, which contributes to a bias on statistical data and a lost in foreign earnings. In 

2007, during the installation of 35 beacons on those vessels at limbe, for the VMS, the control of 

captain logbooks for 32 fishing days resulted on a catch of 15.4t of Penaeus Monodon (7700 two 

kg boxes); 11238 boxes of Penaeus notialis (224.t) and 4829 boxes of Parapenoepsis longirostris

(10 tons). When it comes to the 64 boats operating on bare boat charter, it gives 87 tons of 

shrimps/month and 1044 tons of shrimps per year and 10067 tons of fish (mainly, croakers, and 

soles) based on 839 tons of fish/month. The losses well known as Illegal, Unreported and 

Unregulated, (IUU) fishing in terms of production and export taxes are estimated at 6,2 billion 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 322
per year for shrimps and 20 million CFAF for fish approximately 12 400 000 U$ for shrimps and 

40000 U$ for fish. 

II.3 Fishing grounds and operations 

Seven fishing grounds along the coast are established: in the north part, the Rio del Rey; Bibundi 

bay; Ambas bay. In the South, is the campo river mouth and in between, three rivers are 

encountered the river Cameroon, Sanaga and Nyong. (Fig1). The average number of fishing days 

is 30 for shrimpers and 22 for trawlers. The hauling time is 3 hours average and one hour for deck 

operations for selection and fish processing. On average, shrimpers and trawlers operate 5 to 6 

hauls per day while the Chinese boats operate two to three hauls a day. Fishing vessels operate 

mostly along the shallow waters which result in a huge amount of by-catches and juveniles which 

contribute to impoverish the productivity of fish stocks. Due to poor Control and surveillance 

system, these vessels can cross the three miles area settled as border with the small scale fishery 

leading to the destruction of fishing gears of the latter. All the vessels are equipped with freezing 

tunnels. 

III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF THE FISHERY IN CAMEROON 

Management strategies depend on one or many regulations which should be enforced to be 

effective. Measures for Management and conservation of fish resources are included in the 

fishery law. The broad objectives of fisheries management may include the conservation of 

fisheries resources and their environment, the maximization of economic returns from the fishery, 

and payment of fees to the community from profits made by the exploitation of a public resource. 

As fisheries management must often address social, political, legal, economic and biological 

factors, the overall objectives of fisheries management will almost always involve compromise. 

In Wallis and Flaaten (2000) and Arnason, Hannesson and Schrank (2000), there are three main 

categories of fisheries management services identified: Research (surveys, data analysis, and 

stock assessment); management services involved in adjusting management settings within an 

existing management system; recommending amendments or additions to the existing 

management system and administering the management system (monitoring fishing licenses and 

catch returns); - enforcement services involve surveillance of compliance with fisheries law, both 

at sea or on land (checking of catch, by-catch, licenses, fishing gears), prosecution of those not 

complying with fisheries laws6

. The outcome of fisheries research and stock assessment should be 

to provide advice to fisheries managers in the form of probable biological, economical and 

environmental outcomes for a range of possible management strategies. The Ministry of 

livestocks is in charge of fisheries management, law enforcement while the research is broadly 

handled at the ministry of Scientific research and Innovation (MINRESI). 

III.1 Fishery law and regulations: 

Fisheries regulations are imposed on a fishery to support a strategy designed to achieve 

predefined objectives since any single management strategy measure will produce the desired 

results and a combination of several regulations may be needed. In Cameroon, the laws are 

specified into decrees and regulations to define the access conditions to the fishery. The law n° 

94/01 of 20th January 1994 to lay down forest, fauna and fishery regime is the main law. Any 

applicant, national or foreigner should get the approval from the office of Prime Minister, before 

any license application. The other conditions are: - setting a transceiver on board the vessel; 

setting a By-catch reducing device (BRD) and TED (Turtle Excluder Device) or escape windows

for shrimp trawlers, introduced in the new law and yet to be promulgated. The payment of 

License fee (= GRT x 10 000 CFAF for shrimp trawlers and GRT x 5000 CFAF for fish trawler) 

is compulsory for the vessels. The small scale fishery permit is 3000 CFAF/year and 50 000 

CFAF for semi-industrial fishery. Vessels more than 250 GRT are not allowed in the fishery 

(Limitation of efficiency and type of fishing gears). 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 323
Figure 1: Map of marine main fishing grounds in Cameroon 

Present state of development and exploitation of the fishery 

III.1.1 Limitations on catches or output controls (restrictions to total catch) 

Only one regulation has focused on total catch: Arretee n 0002/MINEPIA of 01 August 2001 to 

set up protection of fish resources. This regulation has five main chapters: chapter I relates to the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 324
protection of sensitive habitats (nurseries and refuges for fishes) protection spawning females; 

chapter two introduces a biological rest, but in fortunately the period and the areas have not been 

defined. Chapter five of this regulation gives minimal size and weight for some target species 

(Sardinella sp; Pseudoolithus sp; Cynoglossus sp and Penaues notialis. Catch quotas: used to 

reduce the level of resource exploitation to a reference predetermined level as MEY have not 

been implemented yet. Trawling is forbidden within the three mile area; the use of scpahandras; 

the use of explosives or chemicals, poison or electric power or lights, guns or automatic traps; 

development of barrages; toxic material, agricultural, domestic or industrial pollutants...there is 

also a list of protected species. 

III. 1.2 Input controls: (regulations to reduce or contain effective fishing effort) 

The regulations dealing with those aspects include: -law n° 94/01 of 20th January 1994 to lay 

down forest, fauna and fishery regime; -Decree n° 95/413 /PM of 20 June 1995 to set up 

enforcement of fish regime;-Decree n° 75/528 of 16 July 1975 to determine exploitation of 

motorised fishing vessels in Cameroon; -Arretee n° 0025/MINEPIA/DIRPEC/SPI forbidding the 

fishing technique of pair trawling ‘Chalut-boeuf’;(gear restriction);-Arretee n° 0021/MINEPIA of 

11 April 2002 to set up inspection of industrial fishing vessels, Scientific observations and 

Surveillance of fishing Activities;

-Decision n° 024/MINEPIA of 15 February 2006 to set up Satellite Surveillance of fishing 

vessels. 

III.1.3 Closures and Marine protected areas: 

 The marine protected areas include the 3 nautical miles area forbidden for trawling as well as the 

rivers mouths and estuaries. The marine protected areas are counted from the lowest sea level, at 

3 nautical miles from the coast and in bights and gulfs as follows: 

-Rade of the river Akpwa Yafe: strait line from Bakassi point to Hanley point, and from that point 

to Sandy point, up to the East point;- Rio del Rey embouchure : strait line from Bakassi cape to 

Betika point: -Bibundi bight: strait line from Madale to Debundscha cape;-Ambas bight: strait line 

from Limboh cape to South of Ambas island, than from that point to Nachtigal cape;- Bight of 

Navire de Guerre: strait line from Nachtigal cape to Bimbia cape;-Bimbia embouchure: strait 

from Bimbia cape to the intersection of the coast with international meridian: 9 o 21’ 40’’ East. -

Cameroon estuary; strait line from the line defined below up to Souellaba point. 

Four other areas are declared marine protected areas: -the Douala-Edea faunal reserve which 

includes a subtidal component including Lake Ossa at the mouth of Sanaga River (World bank, 

1993; Robinson and De Graaf, 1992; IUCN/UNEP (1987); both cited in IUCN, 1995); -the 

Campo faunal reserve is protected, including protection of marine turtles; -Cameroon estuary 

mangrove area (Tiko-Douala area); -Bakassi peninsula mangrove area3

. Some provisions are also 

made against poisonous devices and dynamite. Additional regulations have been signed related to 

mesh size and very recently. The fishery operates the whole year. A biological rest period of three 

months (closure) is expected from January to March but has not been implemented. 

III. 2 ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS AND MCS ORGANISATION

III. 2. 1 The Institutional framework 

The institutional framework for law enforcement on fisheries is defined in the Decree n 2005/152 

0f 04 May 2005 organising the Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal Industries. 

According to the law 94, agents of the Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and 

Animal Industries who have swore in, are surveillance agents in charge of research and routine 

investigations in terms of fishing activities. The difficulties involved in managing a Cameroon 

fisheries resource are related to the number and types of user groups and the distribution and 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 325
mobility of the fish stock. Three main groups are involved in the exploitation: the industrial 

fishery with almost 71 vessels; the semi-industrial fishermen with 100 canoes and the bigger 

group of small scale fishermen 24 435 using 7335 canoes. Resource allocation problems also 

exist where exploited species are distributed over the 402 km of coastline with other countries 

around, Gabon, Nigeria, and Equatorial Guinea. 

The MCS activities were implemented at two different levels derived from the organization chart 

of the Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal industries, in Central services for the design 

and implementation in the field with chiefs of fishing control posts, Divisional heads of fisheries 

sections and Heads of regional fisheries services, Regional and Divisional delegates operated as 

administrators. Their activity consisted in the control of fishing techniques, gears, fish quality and 

collection of fishing taxes and fees, forwarding licenses and fishing permits applications 

according to the fishery law. In that organization, there was not a specific body in charge of MCS. 

In the new organization chart of the ministry, the MCS Brigade is a sub-department in the 

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture in charge of Monitoring, Control and surveillance, 

following the Decree 2005/152 of 4 may 2005. The brigade is in charge of the followings: -

Control and Surveillance of fishing activities; - Control of the respect of fishing regulations; 

Surveillance of fishing grounds and biological rest periods; -organization and monitoring of the 

protection of fish resources; control of gears and fishing techniques, commercial size of target 

species; follow up of landings of fish products from authorized fishing units. 

 The Human resources involved in MCS include all the regional delegates and their collaborators. 

The Brigade is located at the central services in Yaoundé, under the Director of Fisheries and 

Aquaculture; the Minister; the General secretariat; two Technical advisers; General Inspector and 

two Inspectors. At regional level, 10 regions as a whole, the Brigade can operate with Regional 

delegates; Sub-divisional delegates (580) and divisional delegates and their collaborators 

(Regional heads of Fisheries; Controllers and heads of Fishing Control and breeding centers) in 

the country. These structures can undertake MCS activities and report to the Department via the 

Minister. This cumbersome structure constitutes one of the main weaknesses of Cameroon MCS 

and has been criticized for its functionality. 

The MCS include three components: the marine and inland waters patrols; the Vessel Monitoring 

System (VMS) and the scientific observer programme. Marine and Inland patrols are either by 

Surveillance team conducted by the Brigade using the patrol boat at sea, while heads of fishing 

control posts, using fiber glasses canoes perform patrols at sea to control the three nautical mile 

or the lakes and rivers. The VMS is conducted at two stations, Yaoundé at the Headquarters and 

at Douala, with the Argos system. Fines are given to default fishermen and paid either at each 

fishing control post or the Head quarters, but the reports are sent to the Department of Fisheries 

and the Brigade via the Minister. 

III. 2. 2 The marine and inland patrols: 

The marine patrols will be conducted by the Brigade team composed with military gun men and 

agents of the ministry of livestocks. The patrol boat can move from Douala to Limbe or to 

Campo. This is because there is only one patrol boat and one team. 

III. 2.2.1Equipments and cost of implementation (Control and Surveillance) 

Since its creation in 2005, the MCS have acquired some materials: one patrol boat 6m LOA 

propelled with two out boards 85 HP engines (60 million CFAF); 10 fiber glasses canoes 

propelled with 25 hp engines along the coast (Littoral region and South-West), for a cost of 30 

million CFAF (90 million CFAF). There is a need to continue acquisition of those canoes for the 

inland lakes and rivers and the south Region. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 326
It is expected that the patrol boat will perform two outings per week; 4 per month and 48 per year 

for a total cost of 20 million CFAF per year. while for canoes, In 2007, the SOWEDA 

surveillance scheme, organized 62 outings at sea, 12 surveillance outings per month, meaning 4 

per station for a cost of 792 000 CFAF, for almost 334 sailing hours, fuel consumption 3000 

liters, equivalent to 1 752 500 CFAF; 5 infringements notices were issued for a contribution of 2 

000 000 CFAF, for fueling and other expenditures ( risk allowance, salaries of night watchmen, 

salaries of boat driver and assistant, feeding at sea, maintenance and overhauling the engine) cost 

1500 000 CFAF, give 22 500 000 CFAF for three boats. The other stations are Tiko; Kangue; 

Cap Cameroon; Manoka; Youpwe; Tonde; Yoyo; Mbiako; Londji Kribi and Campo, equipped 

with canoes and 40 hp engine. 

III. 2.2.2 Expected incomes from low enforcement: 

Some of the provisions of the 94 law can be charged as follows: for violation of articles 121-122/ 

(lack of fishing license or permit), 131-132/ (lack of authorization for an aquaculture farm), and 

139 (lack of respect of processing, transportation and storage norms); a fine of 50 000 CFAF is 

charged;For the violation of articles 116 – 117/ (default of fishing license, permit or agreement), 

125/ ( default in declaration of catches), 127f/ (setting up dams, channels without authorization),g 

(pouring pollutants and toxic substances in water sheds), h/ (environment destruction within a 

distance of 50 m or a area of 100m), i/(use of non authorized fishing gears), l/ (introduction of 

live foreign fish resources), 129 (use of vessels of more than 250 GRT), 134/ ( creation of fish 

plan without authorization), 137/(selling fish product without any veterinary sanitary inspection), 

a fine of 200 000 CFAF is charged or 20 days jail for against the defaulter.For the violation of 

articles 118/ (issuance of licenses for companies established in Cameroon only); 127 b)/ use of 

devices to reduce the mesh size; c), d)/ (carrying guns on board a vessel or scaphandrous) k) / 

(fraudulent exports of fish products), the fine will be 1 million.The fine will be 3 million the 

defaulter locked for one year for the violation of article 127 a)/ (use of dragging gears or trawlers 

within the three nautical mile area, j/ (carrying dangerous substances or destroying gears), m)/ 

catching unauthorized fish species (dolphins...). The fine will be 10 million CFAF or the 

defaulter locked between 1 to three years in case of use of fake documents. For a foreign vessel, 

the fine is 100 million CFAF, associated with the seizure of the catch and fishing gears. All those 

fines from article 154 to 160 are implemented together with the collection of fraudulent gears or 

material used to commit the offense, including damages and restoring the state of places. All 

delay on the payment of taxes is punished with an increase of the fine from 10 (three months 

delay) to 100 percent (12 months delay). 

Based on the list of infringements below that can happen following the violation of some articles, 

if we assume each of these offenses to happen once a year, expected incomes from the fines will 

be (10 millions + 3 millions + 1 million + 200 000 CFAF + 50 000 CFAF) = 14 750 000 

CFAF~29500 US $. A vessel usually land almost 20 tons of fish, with average price around 1200 

CFAF in 2008 = 24 000 000 CFAF~ 48 000 US $. 

II. 2. 3 The Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) 

The vessel monitoring system provides agencies with accurate locations of fishing vessels 

equipped with beacons; at periodic time intervals (less than 30 minutes); the speed of the vessels 

which can help fisheries agencies to draw conclusions on activities of the vessel. Transmission of 

catch and effort data from the fishing vessel is also possible by the vessel operator. Prior to VMS, 

fisheries management agencies have had to rely on information provided by vessel operators, 

information which may not be reliable, since there are many reasons for the operators giving 

inaccurate information. Apart from the possibility of illegal fishing, location of successful fishing 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 327
ground can be highly valuable commercial information5

. The Argos system is the satellite 

communication used in Cameroon, connected to the ground station at Toulouse (CLS). 

III. 2.3.1 Cost of the Argos system and effectiveness: 

After the pilot stage in 2006, each vessel applying for a license must pay for a transmitter, and the 

services. In 2007, all the vessels (71) paid their transmitters for a total cost of 88 750 000 CFAF 

~177 500 US $. -Fees for services / vessel/ month: 75 000 CFAF x 71 x 12 = 63 900 000 CFAF 

for 2007 and 63 900 000 CFAF for 2008. The total services paid within two years: 127 800 000 

CFAF and for ten year period, the total fees paid will be: 639 000 000 CFAF; installation fees; - 

Internet connections and computers for the reception are not included. The VMS can be effective 

for the restrictions on the MPA, due to some troubles in the Internet connection, the educational 

phase is still going on. 

II. 2. 4 The scientific observers 

Scientific observers are part of the monitoring in MCS, in terms of continuous requirement for the 

measurement of fishing effort characteristics and yield useful for fisheries management. They are 

required to collect resource data used in establishing stock distribution patterns, provide catch and 

effort statistics and biological information for stock assessment; examine the effects of gear types 

on exploited fish stocks, record the associated by-catch and discard rates, collect information on 

fleet fishing patterns and collect detailed production data. The observers’ data set is now 

considered an important complement to research cruise data and port sampling data, because it 

provides a source of information by area, time and species not often covered by the latter group. 

Length, age, and catch per unit effort data, all collected by observers, are now used regularly in 

stock evaluation studies5

. Monitoring such data is good sign of management. According to 

Beverton & Holt (1957), Ricker (1975) and Gulland (1969), data on catch and effort are useful 

and affordable information to determine abundance index measured as the catch per unit of effort 

(c.p.u.e). The main factors that can affect the c.p.u.e are the type of fishing gears and vessels, 

fishing grounds, and availability of fish. In the case of bottom trawling, several studies have 

established a linear relationship between engine power and c.p.u.e (Anon. 1976) and thus, the 

number of fishing days is a good proxy of the effort measure17. The observers do not have the 

legislative authority to enforce fishery regulations. Since information provided by vessel 

operators, may not be reliable, that there are many reasons for the operators giving inaccurate 

information, and that catch and effort data including by-catches, discards are useful for stock 

assessment and management, scientific observers programmes are today justified in the fishery 

sector as a whole. 

II.2. 4. 1 Running the Programme: 

The objective of the programme is to collect relevant data on board all the vessels on a daily 

basis. Scientific observers are embarked randomly on board vessel and stay up to the end of the 

sea trip and then disembarked. An observer cannot stay more two times on the same vessel. 

Following the law n0

 94/01 of 20th January 1994 to lay down Forest, Fauna and Fisheries regime 

and its subsequent regulations, the vessel owner applying for a fishing license should engage on 

honor to contribute to sustainable management of fish resources and thus embark scientific 

observers on its own. 

Coordination of the programme : 

The scientific observer programme is located at the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and 

its execution in the field will be handled by the Head of the brigade of Control and Surveillance 

of Fishing Activities in relationship with other partners (Sub-department of industrial and 

Artisanal fisheries; the head of the Oceanographic and fish research Centre of Limbe; Regional 

Delegates for Littoral, South and South West, and NGOs. 

Human resources needs: 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 328
The observer programme aims at a full coverage of the activity, which means an observer per 

boat and per sea trip. In 2008, 71 boats were registered and taking into account cases of resign by 

some observers, at least 100 persons will be selected, among agents of the ministry working in the 

coastal area. The fishery agents (48) are not enough and there is a need to recruit some more 

agents (52). 

Data collection, processing and analysis and sampling: 

Data collected belong to the Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal Industries/ 

Departement of Fisheries and Aquaculture (DPA). The data are used for various reasons 

including MCS or stock assessment. Analysis of data collected will be made using relevant 

models (Schaefer) or the NANSIS. In this last case, there is a need of setting the NANSIS on 

board commercial vessels like in Namibia. Data collection approach will be the same as under 

REBYC/FAO project, which consisted of a list of sheets: -By-catch; catch and catch composition; 

-Economic and financial performance of the vessels (Earnings, Running cost; Labor cost, 

financial duties and Investments); technical characteristics of trawls; technical characteristics for 

vessels; fleet census). At the end of a sea trip, a sample of discards is taken to the laboratory for 

fish identification; length frequencies of the species and biodiversity assessment. One bag of 

various species is collected per fishing ground. Fish identification and discards analysis may be 

conducted at the Regional delegation of livestocks at Douala or the Research center at Limbe. 

The flow and quantity of data collected will be analyzed using Excel or SPSS. Every year, a 

workshop to share results with the industry and NGOs or other partners is organized. 

Salaries of the observers: 

The duration of the sea trip varies from 15 to 21 days for trawlers and 30 to 45 days for 

shrimpers. The salary will be 50 000 CFAF per sea trip on board trawlers (due to the low value of 

fish products compared to shrimps) and 60 000 CFAF for shrimpers. These salaries are not paid 

directly by the vessel owner, but through a special account in order to receive full reports of the 

observer. 

Profile of the scientific observer: 

The scientific observer is an expert endowed with practical abilities and capacities and a strong 

background on fish biology; fishing techniques and operations; regulations; equipment and 

fishing gears, sailing and communication. Should have a university degree on natural science or 

be fishery technician. This background may be trained or strengthened during two to three weeks 

training or workshop. 

III. 2.4. 2 Budget of the Programme: 

Even though observers are to be paid by the industry, there is a need of additional funding to 

support the programme for the following expenditures: -Transport fees of the observer from the 

residence of the observer to the port; -Printing collection sheets and typing; - Insurance cost for 

the observers; -Medical care and fees in case of accident or illness of the observer; -Recruitment 

of personnel, production analysis and processing of information from the observers; -recruitment 

of 52 scientific observers (part time workers) ; -Follow up of embarking observers and telephone 

communications;-Organization of a two-three days workshop on presentation of observers results 

to the industry. 

Expenditures

1-Transport fees for agents: for 12 months and 71 agents, it gives 24 days / year and by observer 

for a cost of 20 000 CFAF= 71x 20 000 FCFA x 12 = 17 040 000 CFAF; 

2- Salary of the Secretariat: 60 000 CFAF/month x 12 = 720 000 CFAF; 

3- Monthly follow up of the observers / DPA/BCSAP/SDPIA: 2 days per month x 12 = 330 000 x 

12= 3 360 000 CFAF; 

4-Ink for lazer printers and papers: 75 000 CFAF x 6 cartridges = 450 000 CFAF, 5 blocks of 

papers per month x 5000 CFAF x 12= 750 000 CFAF. 

5- Observers kits 100 000 CFAF x 71 = 7100 000 CFAF 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 329
6-Workshop to present observers results and the state of fish resources: 10 000 000 CFAF. 

Total Expenditures: 39 420 000 CFAF. 

Entries: 

1-Contributions from vessel owners: 

15 trawlers X 50 000 CFAF / 12 = 9 000 000 CFAF/year; 

56 Shrimpers: 56 shrimpers x 60 000 x 12 = 40 320 000 FCFA, 49 320 000 CFAF; 

2/other potential contributions:-AMO (Support to working Master) - international Cooperation 

(FAO, USA...). - Organizing a benchmark test to recruit 52 scientific observers (part-time 

workers); 5000 CFAF per worker.

-Running the programme by the MINEPIA in 2010 will cost: 39 420 000 CFAF, while the 

contributions from vessel owners: 49 320 000 CFAF for a total of 88 740 000 CFAF ~ 177 480 

US $ per year. 

IV. The Fishery Policy and Contribution to the Economy 

The Cameroonian fisheries policy is well documented Corsi et al., 1991; Kébé et al., 1993; Njock, 

1997 observed that the fishery authorities in charge of the development and management of the 

sector favour, in general, multisectoral integration and community involvement13. The main 

objectives of the fisheries policy are to achieve animal protein self-sufficiency in fish production 

and therefore reduce imports which average 100000 mt per year since the 2000’s; to improve 

upon livelihood conditions of fishing communities and to ensure the sustainability of the 

fisheries, including if necessary the renewal of the industrial fleet through the following 

strategies: (i) strengthening of institutional arrangements, including organisations, training, 

improvement of regulations; (ii) management of fisheries according to responsible fisheries 

principles, safety at sea and environment protection, (iii) funding of the fishery sector. In order to 

achieve the above mentioned objectives, the government through the Ministry of fisheries has to: 

-train fishermen and finance the construction of necessary infrastructures;-Make fishing material 

available; -facilitate progress in handling, processing, storage and marketing of the products of 

fisheries;-improve upon aquaculture fish production through the equipment of “fish farming 

stations” and making fingerlings available to fish farmers;-modernize the production systems; 

improvement of the institutional framework and incentives; and sustainable management of fish 

resources. 

In 2002, the Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal Industries as its counterpart formulated 

a three year midterm programme from 2003 to 2005 for an amount of 6,810,000,000 CFAF. The 

government established five institutions to support the fishery sector: the Fund for the 

Development of Maritime Artisanal Fishery (CDPM); the National Authority for the 

Development of Small Scale Fishery (MIDEPECAM), the Foumban Fishery Training Centre, the 

Limbe Fishery and Oceanographic Research 

Station and the Industrial Fishery section which has been created in October 2006 at Douala 

University1

. A school for nautical works is built at Limbe to be operational as from 2010. 

 

IV.1 Strengths and Weaknesses 

The Cameroon fishery as its counterparts in the Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem 

(GCLME) region, is suffering from various constraints such as the lack of management plan for 

different fishing grounds; poor statistic data collection and monitoring, control and surveillance 

body; relative poor human resources, poor aquaculture development15. 

IV.1.1 Strengths: 

The policy objectives are the following: -Improving production systems; -Restructuring the 

institutional framework;-Improving incentives measures; -Sustainable management of natural 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 330
resources; these objectives aim at: -Poverty alleviation; Satisfying the increasing demand for 

animal protein; Ensuring the sustainability and performance of production systems by taking into 

account the rise of social and ecological hazards in many areas; Achieving integration to 

international and sub-regional markets through competitiveness so as to limit commercial deficits. 

In formulating policies, most objectives of government policies fall into one to five broad groups: 

-Independence objectives aimed at a satisfactory degree of political and economic autonomy; -

Economic efficiency objectives are concerned with increasing the level of real national income 

and its growth rate over time; -Resource conservation objectives are concerned with pressuring 

the natural resource base in order to ensure long term efficiency and independence; ;-Stability 

objectives are concerned with abrupt and large changes in incomes, in the price and availability of 

domestically produced basic commodities and inputs, and in the consequent need for foreign 

exchange to buy essential inputs; -Equity objectives gear towards the fair distribution of income 

and wealth within the society8

. These include also the distribution of income and assets among 

different types of fishermen within and between fishermen; the relative well-being of producers 

and consumers; the availability of employment opportunities. 

A new organisation chart has been signed giving birth to the Control and Surveillance of fishing 

Activities Brigade and Fish Processing and Fishing Techniques sub department in the 

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. A new law with the introduction of the principles of 

the code of conduct of responsible fisheries has been reviewed and is about to be promulgated; - 

the bottom up approach used in the new fishery law and the planning of some projects should be 

underlined. 

IV.1.2 Weaknesses: 

Poverty alleviation weaknesses are a national concern. The policy instruments “means of a 

policy, action used to carry it out and the methods by which its objectives are achieved, don’t 

match with the objectives. - The new organisation chart of the Ministry has mixed fishing and 

aquaculture positions with stock breeding which will lead to conflicts and non specific 

interventions.- Incentive measures as stated cannot lead to sustainable management of natural 

resources; - Lack of clearly defined strategy for data collection in the fishery in the fishing sector; 

- For training of fishermen, there is no clear link between the centres and the Zootechnical 

Training Centre of Foumban; -No budget provision is made to maintain these training centres out 

of the HIPC Initiative. 

- The time frame allocated to achieve these objectives is not defined as well as the institutions or 

services assigned are not defined or identified. Apart from some projects like ‘Reduction of PostHarvest losses’ ice plants have been built in Kribi, Mouanko and Mbakaou, to be extended 

nationwide; the training of small scale fishermen in Douala and Limbe, most of the activities 

don’t clearly show the linkages among them to achieve 

these objectives. None of the following policy aims, objectives of managing the fishery are well 

defined: 

-1/maximizing sustainable catches: this is by estimating a MSY (maximum sustainable yield). 

2/maximizing economic yield (MEY); particularly appropriate in strictly commercial fisheries 

where the major part of the catch of shrimp is exported. The advantage of maintaining a fishery at 

the level of MEY from a biological perspective is that fishing effort is generally lower than that 

required to maximize yield in weight. Because of this, fishing to secure MEY reduces the 

possibility of recruitment overfishing. 

3/ fishing to biological reference points: 

Management objectives are based on a recommended Total Allowable Catch (TAC), which can 

be framed in terms of biological reference points such as MSY, or economic reference points 

such as MEY. 4/maintaining minimum stock size; 5/ maintaining spawning stocks:

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 331
The decline of many fisheries has been due to reduced recruitment caused by low levels of the 

spawning stock. Although many species show great resilience to reductions in stock levels, 

recruitment failure is the ultimate fate of all stock levels reduced below some minimum critical 

level. 

6/ Ecologically Sustainable development (ESD), to include an ecosystem-based approach to 

fisheries management / Adaptive management strategies / Risk assessment/ Technology creep 

Management targets based on fishing efforts, rather than on fishing mortality or catches, suffer 

from the fact that increases in efficiency will cause increases in effective effort even though 

apparent effort remains the same12. 

IV.2 Contribution of the fishery sector to the economy and food security 

Fish production is estimated at 100,000 metric tons of which almost 80,000 tons from small scale 

fishery. The fishing industry employs more than 200 000 persons of which 65 000 directly and 

135 000 indirectly. To close the gap between demand and supply, the country imports since the 

mid nineties almost 100 000 mt annually leading to a deficit to the fish products trade balance, 

estimated at 20 billion CFAF. The contribution to food security is estimated at 15 

kg/capita/annum, 5.2% in percentage of primary sector and 1.7% of national GDP. However, the 

contribution of livestocks, fisheries and animal industries is wrongly evaluated due to lack of 

accurate data on production, consumption and prices. The main setbacks in the development of 

small scale continental and marine fishing are: -Difficult access and distance of the production 

areas an lack of conducive network for the distribution of fish products within the country; 

leading to heavy post harvest losses; -Poor production, equipment and conservation techniques; -

Poor access to loans; -Lack of organisation among the fishermen; -Relative poor marine waters 

and various illegal fishing activities; -Poor aquaculture development1

. 

IV. 3 Costs and benefits/Advantages of the Three Strategies and Discussion

The focus here is on management tools since for a comprehensive study, the cost of the 

exploitation should also be included. In terms of advantages, we limit to fines since the 

sustainability may also include the value of all the landings and trade and the increase of the catch 

both in size and weight as a result of good management. 

If the sea outings by the surveillance patrol vessel and canoes; the vessel monitoring system and 

the scientific observers contribute to the management of fish resources, it is interesting to 

compare various costs/benefits or advantages related to each instruments to achieve the fishery 

conservation and management objectives or goals (Table 2). The table shows that using the three 

instruments on a yearly basis will cost roughly 121 830 000 

CFAF ~ 243 660 US $, against 14 750 000 CFAF for fines (29500 US $) and almost 2 billion in 

the long run (10 years) ~ 4000 000 US $, against 147 500 000 CFAF of fines ~ 295 000 US $, 

meaning that the cost of management tools is 14 times, the expected incomes from fines. In the 

long run or a yearly basis, the VMS is the most expensive instrument 793 000 000 CFAF 

(1586000 US $) followed by the observers programme 600 200 000 CFAF (1200 400 US $) and 

the sea patrols in the actual stage. 

In terms of benefits or advantages, the observer programme can satisfy several management 

needs: data collection of vessel operations; effective fishing effort; fishing grounds; number and 

duration of hauls; catch data, vessel positions ...monitoring of other environmental factors such 

as climate, mammals, birds... and contribute to stock assessment and sustainable management. 

The observer programme is indicated in the case of Cameroon where most of the vessels coming 

from foreign countries don’t or declare poorly their catches leading to heavy losses to the 

economy. The VMS is effective in terms of continuous tracking of vessel positions and thus the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 332
respect of protected areas and contribution to the conservation of nurseries and spawning areas 

usually targeted by defaulter vessels, one of the main objectives of fisheries management. This 

tool has a direct link with infringements to defaulters. Compared to the observer programme, the 

VMS is a limited instrument when it comes to data collection, while the former contribute poorly 

to the follow up of protected areas. 

The sea patrols are the third costly instruments of fisheries management. The actual study does 

not include patrols conducted separately by the Navy or the Merchant marine. Due to the length 

of the coast (402 km), the actual equipment should also be completed by two more patrol boats to 

operate from Kribi to Campo and another to operate from Limbe to Bakassi, which will increase 

the cost of sea patrols. Another problem with the sea patrols is that they are not conducted during 

the night when most of the defaulters operate which reduces the efficiency of this instrument. 

The building blocks of these management tools are the fishery law where the fines should be high 

enough to discourage poor behavior from vessels. Unfortunately, as demonstrated, expected fines 

for one year will generate only 14 750 000 CFAF (29 500 US $) when actually, the whole catch 

of a boat, 20 tons of fish is 24 000 000 CFAF (48 000 US $). The highest amount for a fine is 10 

million CFAF (5 000 US $) for the use of fake documents, when actually the violation of the 

three mile area (protection of nurseries and spawning area) which is the most dangerous act 

against the sustainability of fish resources is just 3 million (6000 US $). This means, the intrusion 

of a vessel in search of a good catch in that area can be interesting since the fine is lower. In fact, 

in case of fake documents or fishing within the three mile area will lead both to the fine and the 

seizure of the whole catch. This latter aspect of law enforcement has never been used except for 

foreign vessels. This can be explained by poor implementation or understanding of the law. 

Limitation of the number of fishing units has not been yet implemented (license limitation, as 

opposed to an open access system; the number of licenses issued is set at a level believed capable 

of imposing some predetermined level of fishing mortality or taking a total allowable catch. It is 

preferable from an economic view point, to have a smaller number of efficient fishing units than a 

larger number of inefficient ones12.

Conclusion and Recommendations 

Findings of the study indicate that current benefits/advantages from the management tools do not 

compensate the cost of their implementation neither on a yearly basis nor in the long run. This 

situation lasting since many decades shows that the management tools are yet to protect fish 

resources on a sustainable basis. While the VMS is a good tool for the protection of nurseries and 

spawning areas and thus a very good instrument for conservation measures, the observer 

programme is the best instrument in terms of fishing operations and data collection and thus a 

good instrument for stock assessment and advice to managers in terms of state of fish resources. 

The sea patrols will also contribute to the management in terms of enforcement but their 

efficiency is limited by the equipment, the coast length and their use in day time when actually 

most of defaulters operate during the night still covered by the observers and VMS. An efficient 

use of VMS and a good observer programme can be combined with a light programme of sea 

patrols. To compensate the cost of implementation and contribute to sustainable management of 

fish resources in Cameroon, the fishery law should be reviewed to increase the level of fines in 

such a way that, the occurrence of each of the penalties should reach at least the yearly costs. 

These economic aspects of the fishery should be monitored on a yearly basis and included in the 

fishery policy. The observer programme and VMS should be the main management tools while 

sea patrols will be focused on the three mile area. For a better implementation of the law, training 

should also be organized on MCS. 

Bibliography: 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 333
1

 Cabinet Management 2000, Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal Industries (MINEPIA), 2003, 

the livestocks, Fisheries and Animal Industries Development strategy. 

2

CECAF, 2006, Role of CECAF in a region with three Fisheries management bodies, 18th session. Douala 

3-5th October . 8 pages. 3

Chiambeng Yongbi, 2006, Cameroon National Report on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity. Research 

Station for Fisheries and Oceanography, Cameroon, 61p. 

4

FAO Fisheries 2004, Report of the third session of the scientific Sub-Committee of the Fishery Committee 

for the Eastern Central Atlantic. Report N0. 750, Regional office for Africa, Accra. 5

FAO Fishing Technology Service, 2009, fishing operations. 1. Vessel monitoring systems. FAO Technical 

Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. N0. 1, Suppl.1. Rome, FAO, 58 p. 

6

Gooday P. and Galeano, D 2003, Fisheries management: a Framework for Assessing Economic 

Performance, ABARE e report 03.7, Prepared for the Fisheries Resources Research fund, Camberra, April. 7

Gouriou Y., 1993, the environment in the Eastern Tropical Atlantic, FAO, Fisheries technical paper, 292. 

Pp 1-20. 

8

 ILRI training Manual, 1993 Livestocks Policy analysis. International Livestock Research Institute. 249 p. 

9

Jens-Otto Krakstad et al., 2004, Survey of the pelagic and demersal resources of the Eastern Gulf of 

Guinea (Nigeria, Cameroon and Sao Tome and Principe), Institute of Marine Research Bergen. 106 pages. 10Jens-Otto Krakstad et al., 2005, Survey of the pelagic and demersal resources of the Eastern Gulf of 

Guinea (Nigeria, Cameroon and Sao Tome and Principe, Gabon), Institute of Marine Research Bergen.106 

pages 

11Jens-Otto Krakstad et al., 2006, Survey of the pelagic and demersal resources of the Eastern Gulf of 

Guinea (Nigeria, Cameroon and Sao Tome and Principe, Gabon, Congo), Institute of Marine Research 

Bergen.106 pages 

12King Michael 1995, Fisheries Biology: Assessment and Management, Fishing News Books. Blackwell 

science Ltd. 

13Kebe M.; Njock, J.C. et Gallene, J., 1993. Revue sectorielle de la pêche artisanale maritime au Cameroun. 

Programme de Développement Intégré des Pêches Artisanales en Afrique de l’Ouest (DIPA).30 p et 

annexes. DIPA/WP/48. 

14 Meke S. P.N, 2005, Validation of the results from GCLME and other Assessment surveys: Cameroon 

country report, Accra, Ghana. 

15Meke S.P.N, 2006, Guinea Current large Ecosystem (GCLME) project, 2006: Country report: a synthesis 

of Cameroon fisheries issues, GEF/ UNDP/UNIDO/UNEP, Accra, Ghana, 39 pages. 

16Meke S.P.N, and Njifondjou O, 2007 Economic and Financial performance of the Cameroon industrial 

fishing fleet, paper presented during REBYC/FAO workshop, Douala, 18-19 December 2008. 10pages. 17Njock, J.C., 1990, Coastal demersal resources of Cameroon: Biology and Exploitation of main 

ichtyologic species. Thesis for the grade of Doctor es Sciences in Oceanology. University of Aix-Marseille 

2. 

18Prado J. 1990, Fisherman’s workbook, FAO, Fishery Industries Division. 

Acknowledgement: 

I am indebted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which has enabled me to go 

through the fisheries management tools and write this paper. I am also indebted to the African Partnership 

Station (APS) for funding my attendance to this 6th International Fisheries Observers and Monitoring 

Conference. I cannot avoid mentioning three very committed persons that I met or have been in contact 

with, Beth Lumdsen, Teresa Turk and Vogel Augustus. Thanks to Dr Ngoande Salvador the Sub-Director 

of Industrial and Artisanal Fisheries for his valuable comments on this paper. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 334
 

*Supplemental Figure 2: – Estimates of cost and benefits/advantages of the various management tools in 

Cameroon 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 335
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 336
Appendix 2 

Observer Bill of Rights 

List of Observer Rights: 

In order to guarantee an experienced corps of observers, the following basic rights must be 

protected for all observer programs: 

1. Observers have a right to a living wage, including but not limited to: 

a) Health Insurance (Option for year-round coverage and consideration of a national pool 

to decrease cost). 

b) Disability insurance. 

c) Life Insurance. 

d) 401-K retirement plan. 

e) Paid vacations and holidays. 

f) Counseling (peer as well as professional). 

g) Personal and professional insurance. 

h) Transferability of observer credit for purposes of financial compensation from one 

program to another. 

2. Definition of "Observer work" for the purpose of compensation should include the 

following for each program: 

a) Training. 

b) Debriefing. 

c) Deployment. 

d) Stand-by time (including time between deployments and briefing/debriefing). 

e) Step-based pay system that encourages experience and exceptional work. 

f) Travel. 

g) Searching for vessel. 

3. Observers have the right to a safe working environment 

a) Right of refusal to any vessel without repercussions. 

b) No observer to be placed on a vessel that is considered unsafe. 

c) Define the procedure for what to do if a vessel is considered unsafe (A national 

protocol should be developed; information of the vessel’s safety should be provided to 

observers). 

d) Increase minimum safety training standards for all programs and design training to be 

observer program-specific. 

e) Establish better communications between Coast Guard and fisheries agencies. 

f) Ensure reasonable accommodations and food. 

g) Provide observers with vessel’s past safety records via web access. 

4. Observers have the right to be acknowledged for their contribution to science and 

resource management, encompassing the following: 

a) Attendance at workshops. 

b) Credit in publications and other literature. 

5. Observers have the right to support from their program/agency 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 337
a) The program should develop support mechanisms for observers which cultivate a sense 

of belonging. 

b) Each program needs to develop protocols to improve communication, understanding, 

and support for observers. 

c) A grievance procedure should be established that encompasses the work performed by 

the contractor or government agency. 

6. Additional goals suggested for observer programs: 

a) Standardise data forms and species/gear codes nationally or internationally (e.g., 

electronic logbook program). 

b) Creation of a clearinghouse on national/international level for certified observers who 

span various programs. 

c) Establishment of an electronic forum devoted to observer issues. 

d) Direct management staff (e.g., debriefers and trainers) should be required annually to 

serve at sea as observers, but not as a displacement for regular observers. 

Notes: 

1. Observer Bill of Rights presented at the 5th IFOMC, and reported in the 5th IFOMC Proceedings. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 338
Appendix 3

List of Exhibitors 

Disclaimer: Exhibitor company information in taken directly from the company or organizations website 

Archipelago Marine Research Limited 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. is a biological consulting firm that has provided fisheries and 

marine biological services to both public and private sector clients since 1978. Archipelago has 

built a strong reputation for dealing with multidisciplinary projects in an objective, professional 

manner. As a result, our clients have come to value our role in handling sensitive resource 

management issues. 

Archipelago specializes in two key service areas: 

• Near-shore habitat inventory, assessment, and environmental impact analysis 

• Data collection programs in support of commercial fisheries management 

Project experience includes work carried out along both coasts of North America, Australia, and 

New Zealand. 

Archipelago maintains a staff of 175 employees, including Biologists, Technicians, 

Administrative and Information Technology staff, and Government-certified Observers for 

dockside and at-sea monitoring programs. These employees are located in the head office in 

Victoria, regional offices in Port Hardy and Prince Rupert, as well as in many other port locations 

throughout coastal British Columbia. 

www.archipelago.ca 

A.I.S. Incorporated 

AIS is dedicated to the collection of accurate, complete, and reliable marine and ecological data. 

We supply observers for the collection of catch data on commercial fishing vessels; we also 

supply observers for deployment on scows and hopper dredges for monitoring endangered 

species, and we supply inspectors for the recording of disposal data on harbor and waterway 

dredging operations. 

All of our observers and inspectors are fully trained and certified by appropriate government 

agencies such as, the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the Army Corps of Engineers. 

www.aisobservers.com 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 339
NOAA Fisheries Service 

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service is the federal agency, a division of the Department of 

Commerce, responsible for the stewardship of the nation's living marine resources and their 

habitat. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for the management, 

conservation and protection of living marine resources within the United States' Exclusive 

Economic Zone (water three to 200 mile offshore). Using the tools provided by the MagnusonStevens Act, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service assesses and predicts the status of fish 

stocks, ensures compliance with fisheries regulations and works to reduce wasteful fishing 

practices. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, NOAA's 

National Marine Fisheries Service recovers protected marine species (i.e. whales, turtles) without 

unnecessarily impeding economic and recreational opportunities. With the help of the six regional 

offices and eight councils, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service is able to work with 

communities on fishery management issues. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service works to 

promote sustainable fisheries and to prevent lost economic potential associated with overfishing, 

declining species and degraded habitats. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service strives to 

balance competing public needs. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 

IAP World Wide Services 

IAP is a leading provider of support services to the U.S. Department of Defense, other federal 

customers, commercial industry and state and foreign governments. Integrating capabilities 

throughout our global operations allows us to provide superior, customized and cost-effective 

solutions for our customers. 

IAP specializes in responding to the new types of complex emergencies our world increasingly 

encounters today. We build and operate remote base camps, provide air traffic control services 

and generate power for military operations. We provide around-the-clock maintenance services to 

keep military bases running smoothly. And we help the U.S. government supply urgently-needed 

disaster relief supplies to civilians. 

For all these services, IAP has a track record of achieving mission success for our customers. Our 

Business Operating System (BOS) – a proprietary Web-based management tool – has made IAP a 

recognized leader in administering contracts with proven efficiency, transparency and budget 

discipline.

www.iapws.com 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 340
Lat 37 

Lat 37 operates from the beautiful Bay of Plenty in the North Island of New Zealand. 

Simon Anderson is the principal operator of Lat 37 and has a long history in fisheries data 

collection. He spent more than 10 years with the NZ Ministry of Fisheries as a Fisheries Observer 

and since 1999 has been working as a fisheries research provider to several New Zealand 

Government agencies and fisheries stakeholder groups. 

 

During 2001, while under contract to the New Zealand Rock Lobster Industry Council 

(NZRLIC), Simon managed the successful conversion from a paper to an electronic data entry 

system, for use at sea. He took the project from initial conception to full implementation of the 

electronic system for rock lobster catch sampling and tag and release programmes. 

It was due to the successful implementation of this system that Lat 37 was conceived. We wanted 

to offer natural resource solutions for electronic data collection in the field to other people and 

organisations through the experience we’ve accumulated. 

Our aim is to provide a prompt, personal and cost effective service for clients working with 

electronic data collection in the field. We understand the environmental conditions and exposure 

that the equipment will be used in and are experienced in developing programmes with which 

your technicians and operators will quickly become proficient. 

www.lat37.co.nz 

OLFISH 

OLRAC (Ocean and Land Resource Assessment Consultants) is the developer of Olfish. 

OLRAC was founded in 1989 by Dr Amos Barkai and Dr Mike Bergh to provide support for the 

international fishing industry. Specialty to assist with the assessment and management of living 

marine resources. OLRAC consults to most of the major fishing groups in South Africa and has 

in the past consulted extensively in Namibia. 

At a time that international fisheries management is becoming increasingly dominated by 

complex numerical arguments and a very conservative tendency, OLRAC provides the fishing 

industry with the opportunity to communicate with management agencies on an equal technical 

footing, ensuring that decisions embody the principles of sustainability, scientific objectivity, 

political impartiality and economic pragmatism. 

Although OLRAC’s business is based on state-of-the-art quantitative science, the economic and 

practical realities of fishing are also integrated into management recommendations. OLRAC is 

continuously involved in critical management issues across a broad spectrum of fish resources 

and other marine topics. These include demersal, pelagic and lobster fisheries, small-scale 

subsistence fisheries, research into near-shore shark dynamics, environmental impact 

assessments, fisheries policy issues and the development of new fisheries. 

OLRAC specializes in the implementation of sophisticated quantitative tools in fisheries science 

and management using a highly critical and pragmatic approach. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 341
In addition, OLRAC has rich experience in conducting logistically complex field operations 

involving large numbers of divers and vessels. IKRAC adheres to strict timetables and deadlines 

in accordance with the needs and realities of the fishing industry. 

www.olfish.com 

Juniper Systems 

Juniper Systems, Inc. provides intuitive field computing solutions for rugged applications 

High-quality rugged field computers are designed for use in harsh outdoor and industrial 

environments. Systems complete with hardware, software, and accessories are provided for land 

survey, natural resource, industrial, agriculture, and other rugged applications. HarvestMaster 

brand products provide on-combine seed research and electronic field note taking. 

We design, test, manufacture, and market our products from our Juniper Systems’ facility, 

allowing us to focus on quality and provide excellent support to our customers. Mobile data 

collection solutions and application expertise are enhanced through strong relationships with our 

business partners. 

Our Juniper Systems’ facility is located in Logan, Utah in the northern end of the state. We are 

lucky to have easy access to the beautiful sites and recreational opportunities shown above. In 

November of 2004 our dream of owning our own building became a reality. An addition to the 

building was finished in 2008, more than doubling the size of our facility. A visit here for a 

product demonstration or training will be well worth the trip. 

We celebrated our fifteen-year anniversary in 2008, although our roots go back much further. Our 

parent company, Campbell Scientific, Inc., is known world-wide for its quality measurement 

instrumentation. If you are looking for a weather station, take a look at their web site: Campbell 

Scientific. 

www.junipersys.com 

NOAA Fisheries National Observer Program 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA Fisheries) deploys fishery observers to collect catch and bycatch data from US 

commercial fishing and processing vessels. Annually 42 different fisheries are monitored by 

observer programs logging over 60,000 observer days at sea. NOAA Fisheries has been using 

observers to collect fisheries data from 1972 to the present. Observers have monitored fishing 

activities on all US coasts, collecting data for a range of conservation and management issues. 

NOAA Fisheries coordinates observer program management through its Office of Science and 

Technology/National Observer Program (NOP). The NOP seeks to support observer programs 

and increase their usefulness to the overall goals of NOAA Fisheries. Improvements in data 

collection, observer training, and the integration of observer data with other research are among 

the important issues that the NOP works to achieve on a national level. 

The NOAA observer map builds upon information collected at previous IFOC. It displays 

information about coverage of the observer programs worldwide. The map is featured on the 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 342
NOAA, National Observer Program website. To update your information about the observer 

program in your country, please visit the US National Observer Program Website below. 

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/ 

We are grateful for all of the exhibitors’ support of the 6th IFOMC. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 343
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 344
Appendix 4 

Conference Evaluations 

Below is a summary of the over 70 collected conference evaluations filled out after 

the 6th IFOMC. Please not that not all evaluations had all questions or all parts of 

questions completed.

Ratings 

5 4 3 2 1 

Range of topics 39 31 4 0 0 

Quality of speakers 27 42 4 0 0 

Poster program 28 35 8 1 0 

Trade exhibition 15 35 13 9 0 

Social events 38 30 4 3 0 

Catering 30 20 17 9 2 

Venue facilities 36 20 15 1 0 

Overall conference organisation 41 30 3 0 0 

Value for money 33 30 9 1 0 

Gender and ethnicity responses to the conference evaluation 

Female: 25 

Male: 41 

Ethnic minority in the country being represented: 

USA: 28 

Canada: 8 

Senegal: 3 

Namibia: 3 

New Zealand: 3 

The Netherlands: 2 

France: 2 

United Kingdom 1 

India: 1 

Australia: 1 

Indonesia: 1 

Sweden: 1 

China: 1 

Cote d ‘Ivoire: 1 

Bangladesh: 1 

Falkland Islands: 1 

Denmark: 1 

Indonesia: 1 

Argentina: 1 

Turkey: 1 

Morocco: 1 

Venezuela: 1

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 345
Below are 6 random responses from the evaluations from each question that 

appeared on the conference evaluation form 

1. What did you enjoy most about the Conference? 

• To understanding current situation on the implementation observer program in each 

country, including challenges and opportunities, that presented in the workshop and 

discussed with others participants as well. 

• Understanding the current situation on the implementation of observer programs in each 

country, including challenges and opportunities that presented in the workshop and 

discussed with other participants as well. 

• I thought the diversity of speakers and topics was great. I met many different people and 

learned a lot from very different programs. I also liked the common themes of keeping 

observers safe, trying to make progress in ways of to ease the burden of stringent data 

collection, and also advocating that observers are not a catch-all for all initiatives, 

namely enforcement as that becomes more and more of an issue. 

• Opportunities, formal and informal networking and learning about programs all over the 

world. 

• The breathe of more international delegates. The Moving Sushi images were wonderful, 

but difficult to see the connection between what they’re doing and observer programs. 

• Meeting colleagues from around the world committed to quality data. 

2. Did you participate in a Work Group? Breakout session? Other? Please comment. 

• Yes, I did, I enjoyed it so much since I can choose the subject group that would be my 

concern. For the future, need to develop more subjects and theme for breakout sessions, 

so there are more choices to participate in a variety of breakout groups. 

• I participated in the data extrapolation workshop which I thought was very well done, 

although the content was a bit beyond my realm of expertise. 

• Data Extrapolation Workshop was great! 

• Yes, the Data Extrapolation Workshop. I would have liked a more discrete outcome, but 

it was a start. 

• I interviewed during the Observer Professionalism working group. Enjoyed it, but wished 

I wouldn’t have had to miss panels to attend. 

• Yes, the data extrapolation workshop was very interesting. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 346
3. Did the conference adequately address the vision statement? To develop, promote and 

enhance effective fishery monitoring programs to ensure sustainable resource management 

throughout the world's oceans. 

Yes 68 

No 11 

• Consider more participation from Asia and Africa. Politician and fishery manager 

presence at the conference is a must. 

• During the deliberations I really had and overview on how one has to address issues 

related to sound sustainable resources management, enforcement related matters, and 

way of science approach throughout the world’s oceans ( to a certain extent). 

• It would be great to hear less about North American programs and more about some 

well established places around the world. 

• To gain MSY in the world’s oceans, more stock assessment and extrapolation is 

necessary to conserve the aquatic resources and management. 

• Cannot assess sustainability without adequate monitoring, and without an emphasis 

on good quality data. 

• Promote? Yes. Development and Enhance? Not that I could see. 

4. Did the conference adequately address the mission statement? To improve fishery 

monitoring programs worldwide through sharing of practices and development of new 

methods of data collection and analysis. To provide a forum for dialog between those 

responsible for monitoring fisheries and those who rely upon the data they collect. 

 Yes 64 

 No 5 

• Yes, to provide a forum for dialog between those responsible for monitoring 

fisheries. 

• No. I think the conference would benefit from wider participation by fishing industry 

representatives. I was one of the three or four industry folks at the conference and 

found that level of participation to be quite meager and insufficient. 

• Yes, very much so, I enjoyed hearing about observer programs from other continents. 

• Yes, I felt that there was a good range of topics and that most panel sessions had a 

good range of different perspectives. 

• Yes, good job in creating a dialog amongst those responsible for monitoring; there is 

a need to better engage with those that rely on the data... fishermen. 

• No, again we have to work more time on specific matters and not just speak about his 

in a multitude of speakers. So, we have to reduce the number of speakers 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 347
5. Is there anything we could improve? 

• I hope more academic topics will be presented at the next conference. For example, 

topics about how to design sampling, strategy, optimum sample size, and spatial and 

temporal scale sample 

• Posters, Organize them by theme so that they are easier to find 

• Maybe, screen for content for NGOs. Pew video somewhat inflammatory- not good 

for effective communication. 

• Food variety was very limited to seafood and vegetarian options. Would have liked to 

see chicken/ beef dishes. 

• Would have preferred more focused sessions perhaps with fewer speakers to allow 

more detailed exploration of specific issues. >70 speakers in a 4 day period does not 

allow time for discussion. Felt a little like a massive data dump. However, appreciate 

that many prefer this way. 

• Food- not enough choice@ breakfast and lunch. Poster session more- fund more 

observers. 

6. Any other topics/program elements you would find valuable at future Conferences? 

• Workshops talking about how to scientifically use observer data, how to develop 

database for storing observed data will meet much interests. 

• I would like to see opportunities to exchange/ standardize training 

methodologies/possible curricula among different countries. 

• People not overly confident to speak at the microphone in front of such a huge audience. 

Conference is excellent. Very useful. Most presentations were very informative but some 

presenters overlapped on same material and info was not different. I hope more academic 

topics will be presented at the next conference. For example, topics about how to design 

sampling strategy, optimum sample size, and spatial and temporal scale of sample. 

• There are probably many groups working to develop similar technologies and I would’ve 

liked more detailed discussions about technologies such as: Video, database design and 

data management, data base confidentiality and dissemination, and catch estimation 

techniques. 

• Social studies on fishers by observer programs. 

• Electronic reporting and observer monitoring on recreational for-hire vessels is an 

emerging topic with some new challenges to address. 

 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 348
7. This conference is currently held biennially, should it be held more or less frequently? 

• Ok. 

• Its fine. 

• If you offer the conference too often, you will dilute the impact. 

• I feel that there should 2-2.5 years between conferences. 

• Frequency is fine. 

• Biennially is good. 

8. Other comments: 

• Maybe it would be important to have simultaneous translation that would improve 

participation of interested people. 

• I enjoyed it a lot. 

• Idea for prizes- to encourage questions from various groups, there could be a lottery for 

people who ask questions or participate. The conference is still pricey- discourages 

developing world participation. 

• Strengthen competence in surveillance and control and create a pool of observers on 

maritime African Coast, which appears to be vulnerable. 

• The international element of the conference is invaluable and inspiring. Hope we can 

continue to get more countries and strong participation outside- the U.S and Canada. 

• I enjoyed the conference and glad that I attended. 

Tell us about yourself: 

(This question allowed for multiple selections by evaluators, the total number of responses is over 

the total evaluation forms filled out. 

9. What is your current involvement in the fisheries observer profession (check all that apply): 

Fisheries observer 

4 

User of observer data (eg. Fisheries manager, scientific analyst, NGO member) 

20 

Shore-based member of an observer provider/contracting company 

8 

Fisherman/fisherwoman or fishing industry representative 

1 

Staff of a governing body 

22 

Other: 

 17

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 349
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 350
Appendix 5 

2009 IFOMC 

Delegate List 

Abercrombie, Debra 

Research Scientist 

State University of New York at 

Stony Brook 

Institute for Ocean Conservation 

Science Discovery 

Stony Brook, NY 

USA 

debra.abercrombie@stonybrook.

edu

Abukhder, Ahmed 

Head of Technical Cooperation 

General Authority for Marine 

Wealth 

Dahara Tripolie 

LIBYA 

abuk53@gam-ly.org

Ackerman, Barry 

Groundfish Trawl Coordinator - 

Pacific Region 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Vancouver, British Columbia 

CANADA 

barry.ackerman@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Adams, Daniel 

Sales Account Manager 

Juniper Systems Inc. 

Logan, UT 

USA 

danny@junipersys.com

Adams, Michael 

Assistant Special Agent in 

 Charge 

NOAA Office of Law 

Enforcement 

Anchorage, AK 

USA 

mike.adams@noaa.gov

Aslept, Karen 

Galveston, TX 

USA 

kaslept@yahoo.com

Altamirano, Ernesto 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission 

La Jolla, CA 

USA 

ealtamirano@iattc.org

Amande, Monin- Justin 

Ph.D. student 

Institut de Recherche pour le 

Developpement 

Universite Abobo-Adjame 

Abidjan 

COTE D’IVOIRE 

Amonin2@yahoo.fr

Anderson, Melissa 

Fishery Biologist 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

melissa.anderson@noaa.gov

Anderson, Simon 

Principal 

Lat 37 Ltd. 

Ohope 

NEW ZEALAND 

simon@lat37.co.nz

Appleyard, Eric 

Scientific Observer Data Analyst 

CCAMLR 

Tasmania 

AUSTRALIA 

eric@ccamlr.org

Arceneaux, Stuart 

Program Liason Officer 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Honolulu, HI 

USA 

Stuart.arceneaux@noaa.gov

Andrew Ashley 

Industry Funded Scallop 

Observer/ NEFOP 

East West Technical Services 

New Britain, CT 

USA 

wetcon@gmail.com

Ashmore, Tim 

Communications Specialist 

IAP Worldwide Services 

Cape Canaveral, FL 

USA 

Timothy.s.ashmore@iapws.com

Atobrah, Papa Yaw

Head 

Monitoring Control and 

Surveillance 

Fisheries Commission 

Greater Accra 

GHANA 

Papayaw_gh2002@yahoo.com

Avila, Rodney 

Certified Coast Guard Marine 

Safety Instructor 

New Bedford, MA 

USA 

rodavilla@comcast.net

Bailey, Phil 

President 

Electric Edge Systems Group 

Inc. 

Victoria, BC 

CANADA 

phil@electricedgesystems.com

Baker, Kyle 

Fishery Biologist 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

St. Petersburg, FL 

USA 

kyle.baker@noaa.gov

Baker, Peter 

Pew Environment Group 

Harwich, MA 

USA 

pbaker@pewtrusts.org

Baker, Scott 

Fisheries Extension Specialist 

North Carolina Sea Grant 

UNC- Wilmington, Center for 

Marine Science 

Wilmington, NC 

USA 

bakers@uncw.edu

Ball, Michael 

 Integrated Statistics, Inc./NOAA 

 Cooperative Research 

 Falmouth, MA 

USA 

michael.ball@noaa.gov

Bangura, Alpha Abdul 

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine 

Resources 

SIERRA LEONE 

aalphabangura@yahoo.com

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 351
Bank, Crista

Fisheries Research Technician 

University of Massachusetts 

Dartmouth SMAST 

Fairhaven, MA 

USA 

cbank@umassd.edu

Bass, Crystal 

A.I.S., Inc. 

New Bedford, MA 

USA 

Calypso.cb@gmail.com

Barabash, Ken 

At Sea Fisheries Observer 

Archipelago Marine Research 

Ltd. 

Victoria, BC 

CANADA 

jenp@archipelgo.ca

Bassick, Paul 

Commercial Fishing Vessel 

Safety First Coast Guard District 

 Boston, MA 

USA 

paul.m.bassick@uscg.mil

Reuben Beazley, 

Teamsters/ Seawatch 

CANADA 

Reuben.beazley@nf.sympatico.ca

Beerkircher, Lawrence

Research Fisheries Biologist 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Miami, FL 

USA 

lawrence.r.beerkircher@noaa.gov

Belay, Brian 

Observer Operations Manager 

MRAG Americas 

Anchorage, AK 

USA 

Brian.belay@mragamericas.com

Benaka, Lee 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

Lee.benaka@noaa.gov

Benante, Jim 

Program Manager – West Coast 

Groundfish Observer Program 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission 

 Seattle, WA 

USA 

jimb@psmfc.org

Benson, Harry 

President 

Seawatch 

St John's NL 

CANADA 

hbenson@beothuk.com

Billings, Alicia 

Consultant 

Lotus Web Design and 

Consulting 

Port Orford, OR 

USA 

Alicia@lotuswebconsulting.com

Blanco, Gabriel 

Head National Observer 

Program Argentina 

INIDEP 

Buenos Aires 

ARGENTINA 

bigornia@inidep.edu.ar

Bland, Robert 

A.I.S., Inc. 

New Bedford, Massachusetts 

USA 

Rbland79@hotmail.com

Blankenbeker, Kim 

Foreign Affairs Specialist 

NOAA 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

kimberly.blakenbeker@noaa.gov

Bolotova, Natalia

Head of Zoology and Ecology 

Vologda State Pedagogical 

University 

Vologda 

RUSSIA 

bolotova@vologda.ru

Bond, Shelly 

Informatics Analyst 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Maritimes Region 

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia 

CANADA 

bonds@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Bonney, Julie 

Executive Director 

Alaska Groundfish Data Bank 

Kodiak, AK 

USA 

agdb@gci.net

Borges, Lisa

European Commission 

Directorate General for 

Maritime Affairs & Fisheries 

BELGIUM 

Lisa.borges@ec.europa.eu

Boyes, David 

Arbegar Fishing Co. Ltd 

Courtenay, BC 

CANADA 

mcboyes@telus.net

Brainard, Michael 

Staff Officer 

Mississippi Department of 

Marine Resources 

Biloxi, MS 

USA 

mike.brainard@dmr.ms.gov

Brazer, Eric 

Sector Manager 

Georges Bank Cod Hook and 

Fixed Gear Sectors 

North Chatham, MA 

USA 

eric@ccchfa.org

Brogan, Gilbert 

Northeast Representative 

OCEANA 

Wayland, MA 

USA 

gbrogan@oceana.org

Brooke, Samantha 

Fisheries Biologist 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

National Observer Program 

 Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

samantha.brooke@noaa.gov

Burke, Patricia 

Monitoring Program Manager 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Newport, OR 

USA 

Patricia.burke@noaa.gov

Bush, Karla 

Fishery Biologist 

Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game 

Juneau, AK 

USA 

Karla.bush@alaska.gov

Cahalan, Jennifer

Statistician 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission 

NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

Jennifer.cahalan@psmfc.org

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 352
Carlshamre, Sofia 

Observer 

Swedish Board of Fisheries 

Lysekil 

SWEDEN 

Sofia.carlshamre@fiskeriverket.

se

Casey, Evan 

Observer 

Saltwater Inc. 

Honolulu, HI 

USA 

Gilligan66@hotmail.com

Cauquil, Pascal 

Institut de Recherché Pour Le 

Developpement Ave. J. Monnet 

Sete 

FRANCE 

Pascal.cauquil@ird.fr

Chabiuka, Jacob 

Javitech Limited 

Halifax, NS 

CANADA 

Jacob@javitech.ca

Chaszar, Joe 

Observer Training Specialist 

North Pacific Fisheries Observer 

Training Center 

University Of Alaska 

Anchorage, AK 

USA 

anjmcl@uaa.alaska.edu

Chavance, Pierre 

Institut de Recherché pour Le 

developpement 

Centre de Recherche Halieutique 

Ave. J. Monnet 

Sete 

FRANCE 

pierre.chavance@ird.fr

Chen, Flavia 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook 

Fishermen's Association 

North Chatham, Massachusetts 

USA 

flavia@ccchfa.org

Christiansen, Jenna 

Outreach/Trainer 

NOAA/NEFSC Sector 

Monitoring Program 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

Jenna.Christiansen@noaa.gov

Cierpich, Sarah

Data Editor 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

Sarah.cierpich@noaa.gov

Connor, Greg 

President 

Atlantic Catch Data 

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia 

CANADA 

Gconnor@atlanticcatchdata.ca

Cornish, Vicki 

Ocean Conservancy 

Arlington, VA 

USA 

vcornish@oceanconservancy.org

Correia, Manuel

Pnov-Database Manager 

Pnov-Fundatun 

Edf San Pablo, Ph, Frente Puerto 

Pesquero Cumana, 

Edo Sucre, 

VENEZUELA 

fundatunpnov@gmail.com

Course, Grant 

Senior Industry Liaison Officer 

Centre for Environment, 

Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Science 

CEFAS Laboratory, West Strand 

Whitehaven, Cumbria 

UNITED KINGDOM 

grant.course@cefas.co.uk

Cramer, Allen

Observer Coordinator 

NOAA/NWFSC/FRAM/ 

WCGOP Contractor 

Newport, OR 

USA 

allen.cramer@noaa.gov

Crawford, John 

Scientist 

 Pew Environmental Group 

 Wayland, MA 

USA

jcrawford@pewtrusts.org

Croft, Gregory

Staff Officer - Observer 

Programs 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia 

CANADA 

croftg@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Cuevas, Kerwin

Bureau Director 

Mississippi Department of 

Marine Resources 

Biloxi, MS 

USA 

Kerwin.Cuevas@Dmr.Ms.Gov

Curci, Lucas

Fisheries Observer 

A.I.S., Inc/NEFOP 

New Bedford, Massachusetts 

USA 

lcurci@mail.une.edu

Cygler, Jerry 

East West Technical Services 

President 

New Britain, CT 

USA 

Jerry@Ewts.Com

Cygler, Karl 

East West Technical Services 

Operations Manager 

Narragansett, RI 

USA 

karl@ewts.com

Dalskov, Jørgen 

Senior Advisor 

National Institute for Aquatic 

Resources 

Charlottenlund 

DENMARK 

jd@aqua.dtu.dk

Dalton, James

Fishery Observer 

Teamsters Union/Seawatch 

St. John’s, NL 

CANADA 

jimdalton3@msn.com

Davis, Keith

Fishery Observer & APO Board 

Member 

Association for Professional 

Observers 

Concho, AZ 

USA 

lblegend@yahoo.com

Degruchy, Wayne

Fishery Observer 

Teamsters Union/Seawatch 

Conception Bay South, NL 

CANADA 

degruchyw@nl.rogers.com

Dietrich, Kim 

Consultant 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

kdiet@myuw.net

Dohey, Kay 

Guest 

rgill@teamstersl855.com

Donovan, Cassandra

Fisheries Biologist 

NWFSC Sea Hake Observer 

Program 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

cassandra.donovan@noaa.gov

Doughtie, Brooks

Shark Observer 

IAP Worldwide Services 

Panama City, FL 

USA 

brooks.doughtie@noaa.gov

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 353
Druskat, Erich

Data Editor 

NOAA/Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

edruskat@mercury.wh.whoi.edu

Duarte, Debra

Data Analyst 

NOAA/Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

debra.duarte@noaa.gov

Dubois, Todd

Assistant Director 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Office of Law Enforcement 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

todd.dubois@noaa.gov

Dwyer, Judy

Chief, Enforcement Programs 

Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada 

Ottawa, ON 

CANADA 

judy.dwyer@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Dyas, Morgan

Manager 

Archipelago Marine Research 

Ltd. 

Victoria, BC 

CANADA 

morgand@archipelago.ca

Eayrs, Steve 

Research Scientist 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

Portland, ME 

USA 

steve@gmri.org

El Ktiri, Taoufik

Chef Du Service De 

L'application De La Reglement 

Directions Des Peches 

Maritimes 

Rabat Maroc 

MOROCCO 

elktiri@mpm.gov.ma

Elekon, Hasan 

Engineer PH.D 

Ministry of Agriculture and 

Rural Affairs 

Department of Fisheries 

Ankara 

TURKEY 

hasanalper@kkgm.gov.tr

Engelke-Ros, Meggan

Enforcement Attorney 

NOAA/GCEl 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

Meggan.Engelke-Ros@noaa.gov

English, Elizabethann

International Policy Advisor 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

liz.english@noaa.gov

Ennevor, Bridget 

Resource Management Biologist 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Delta, BC 

CANADA 

bridget.ennevor@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Enriquez, Lyle

Fish Biologist/Observer Program 

Coordinator 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service/Sustainable Fisheries 

Division 

Long Beach, CA 

USA 

Lyle.enriquez@noaa.gov

Espinosa, Enrique 

Operative Director 

Panama National Observer 

Program Panama 

Brisas Del Golf 

PANAMA 

espinosaenrique@gmail.com

Faunce, Craig 

Research Fishery Biologist 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

craig.faunce@noaa.gov

Fedoruk, Andrew

Archipelago Marine Research 

Ltd. 

Victoria, BC 

CANADA 

andrewk@archipelago.ca

Fetherston, Elizabeth

Southeast Fish Program 

Manager 

Ocean Conservancy 

St. Petersburg, FL 

USA 

efetherston@oceanconservancy.

org

Fleming, Roger 

Project Attorney 

 Earth Justice 

Washington, DC 

 USA 

rfleming@earthjustice.org

Flora, Corrin

Vessel Call-In Coordinator 

NOAA/Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

corrin.flora@noaa.gov

Forney, Eric

Fishery Information Specialist 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Honolulu, HI 

USA 

eric.forney@noaa.gov

Forster, Robert 

Centre for Environment, 

Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Science 

Penzance Cornwall 

UNITED KINGDOM 

robert.forster@cefas.co.uk

Forward, Cyril

Fishery Observer 

Teamsters Union/Seawatch 

Carbonear, NL 

CANADA 

c.forward@hotmail.com

France, Andrew 

Development Officer

Observer Services 

Ministry of Fisheries 

Wellington 

NEW ZEALAND 

francea@fish.govt.nz

Gaffney, Tom 

 Special Agent 

 NMFS Office of Law 

 Enforcement 

 East. Falmouth, MA 

 USA 

tom.gaffney@noaa.gov

Gale, Pam

Alaskan Observers Inc. 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

fishgale@aol.com

Gaudiano, Joe Pres 

Project Coordinator 

WWF-Philippines 

Quezon City 

PHILIPPINES 

agaudiano@wwf.org.ph

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 354
Gauvin, John

Fishery Science Projects 

Director 

Best Use Cooperative 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

gauvin@seanet.com

Gerges, Makram 

Professor Emeritus 

Oceanography 

National Institute of 

Oceanography & Fisheries 

Heliopolis Cairo 

EGYPT 

magerges@hotmail.com

Gerke, Brandee

Observer Liaison 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Juneau, AK 

USA 

brandee.gerke@noaa.gov

Giacalone, Vito

Speaker 

Northeast Seafood Coalition 

Gloucester, MA 

USA 

vito@northeastseafoodcoalition.

org

Gibbon, James 

 Environmental Defense Fund 

 San Francisco, CA 

USA 

jgibbon@gmail.com

Gill, Richard

Business Agent 

Teamsters Union 

St. John's, NL 

CANADA 

rgill@teamstersl855.com

Gilroy, Heather

Fisheries Statistics Program 

Manager 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

heather@iphc.washington.edu

Gislason, Gordon 

Economist 

Gs Gislason Associates, Ltd 

Vancouver, BC 

CANADA 

gsg@.gsg.bc.ca

Gningue, Mory 

Fisheries Observer 

Direction of Protection and 

Surveillance of Fisheries 

Dakar 

SENEGAL 

mory082@yahoo.fr

Golden, Dawn

Observer/Debriefer 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Honolulu, HI 

USA 

Dawn.Golden@noaa.gov

Goldstein, Howard

Fisheries Biologist 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

Howard.goldstein@noaa.gov

Goodreau, Lou

IT/NEFMC 

Newburyport, MA 

USA 

lgoodreau@nefmc.org

Grant, Mark 

Sector Policy Analyst 

DOC/ NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Gloucester, MA 

USA 

mark.grant@noaa.gov

Gray, Charles 

NSW Department of Primary 

Industries 

Cronulla Fisheries Research 

Centre of Excellence 

AUSTRALIA 

charles.gray@dpi.nsw.gov.au

Griffin, Elizabeth 

Marine Scientist and Fisheries 

Campaign Manager 

OCEANA 

egriffin@oceana.org

Grinnell, Matthew

General Delivery 

Lasqueti Island, 

BC 

CANADA 

mgrinnel@sfu.ca

Gross, Craig 

Area Coordinator 

A.I.S., INC/ NEFOP 

Bedford, MA 

USA 

craigg@aisobservers.com

Gulak, Simon 

SEFOP Assistant Observer 

Coordinator/ NMFS 

IAP Worldwide Services 

Panama City, FL 

USA 

simon.gulak@noaa.gov

Guzman Fernández, Oscar

Jefe Sección De Muestreo 

Instituto De Fomento Pesquero 

CHILE 

oguzman@ifop.cl

Hagg, Keith 

 Attorney-Advisor 

 NOAA General Counsel 

 Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

Keith.hagg@noaa.gov

Haggard, Melany

Fisheries Observer 

MRAG Americas 

Minnville, OR 

USA 

melany.haggard@gmail.com

Hale, Loraine 

IAP Worldwide Services 

Panama City, FL 

USA 

loraine.hale@noaa.gov

Hammerle, Bob 

Business Development 

IAP Worldwide Services 

Cape Canaveral, FL 

USA 

robert.a.hammerle@iapws.com

Hansford, Dennis 

IFOMC Chairman/Fishery 

Biologist 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

National Observer Program 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

Dennis.Hansford@noaa.gov

Hasan, Md Masud 

Chief Microbiologist 

SAR & CO Ltd. 

Chittagong 

BANGLADESH 

masudmicro@yahoo.com

Hawkins, Anne

Fishery Analyst 

New England Fishery 

Management Council 

Newburyport, MA 

USA 

ahawkins@nefmc.org

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 355
Hayes, Arno

Olrac 

Western Province 

SOUTH AFRICA 

arno@olrac.com

Hayes, Christopher

Data Coordinator 

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative 

Statistics Program 

Washington DC 

USA 

chris.hayes@accsp.org

Heery, Eliza

Analyst 

West Coast Groundfish Observer 

Program 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

eliza.heery@noaa.gov

Heinecken, Christopher 

Director 

Capricorn Fisheries Monitoring 

Cape Town 

SOUTH AFRICA 

chris@capfish.co.za

Henninger, Heidi

Assistant Director 

Olfish-Aola 

Bedford, NH 

USA 

heidi@offshorelobster.org

Hieter, Daniel

USCG 

Portland, ME 

USA 

aniel.j.hieter@uscg.mil

Hinteregger, Georg 

 NMFS Observer 

Hope Valley, RI 

gfhinterreger@gmail.com

Hogan, Jennifer 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Alaska Regional Office 

Juneau, AK 

USA 

jennifer.hogan@noaa.gov

Houtman, Robert

Stock Assessment Biologist 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Pacific Biological Station 

Nanaimo, BC 

CANADA 

rob.houtman@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Hubbard, Robert

Fisheries Observer 

Javitech Ltd. 

South Ohio, Nova Scotia, 

CANADA 

hubbard_20@msn.com

Irene, Huse 

Scientist 

Institute of Marine Research 

Bergen 

NORWAY 

Irene@imr.no

Inkpen, Todd

Aquatic Science Technician 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

St. John's, NL 

CANADA 

todd.inkpen@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Jacobson, Nikki

Fisheries Researcher 

University of Massachusetts 

SMAST 

Fairhaven, MA 

USA 

jacobson.n@gmail.com

Jansson, Therese

Observer 

Swedish Board of Fisheries 

Lysekil, 

SWEDEN 

therese.jansson@fiskeriverket.se

Jeans, Meghan

Co-Director 

Fisheries Leadership and 

Sustainability Forum 

Stanford University - Center for 

Ocean Solutions 

Stanford, CA 

USA 

mjeans@stanford.edu

Kane, Ray

Fisherman 

CCCHFA 

North Chatham, MA 

USA 

mel@ccchfa.org

Kardas, Mandy 

 Naugatuck, Connecticut 

USA 

mndy1980@juno.com

Kayabasi, Yasar 

Section Director 

Ministry Of Agriculture and 

Rural Affairs 

Deptartment of Fisheries 

Ankara 

TURKEY 

yasark@Kkgm.Gov.Tr

Kean, Jackie

Staff Officer - Program 

Integration 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

St John's, NL 

CANADA 

jackie.kean@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Keene, Kenneth

Research Fishery Biologist 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Key Biscayne, FL 

USA 

kenneth.keene@noaa.gov

Kelland, Gary

Chief - Program Integration 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

St John's, NL 

CANADA 

gary.kelland@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Kelly, John

Observer Program Manager 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Honolulu, HI 

USA 

john.d.kelly@noaa.gov

Kelly, Michael

Vice President 

CLS America 

Largo, MD 

USA 

mkelly@clsamerica.com

Kelly, Steve

A.I.S., Inc. 

NEFOP 

New Bedford MA 

USA 

skelly@aisobservers.com

Kennelly, Steven

Chief Scientist 

NSW Deptartment of Primary 

Industries 

Cronulla Fisheries Research 

Centre of Excellence 

AUSTRALIA 

steve.kennelly@dpi.nsw.gov.au

King, Melanie 

Knauss Sea Grant Fellow 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service/ OIA 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

melanie.king@noaa.gov

Koopmann, Michael

Control Fisheries Inspector 

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine 

Resources 

Walvis Bay 

NAMIBIA 

mkoopman@mfmr.gov.na

Kritizer, Jacob 

Senior Marine Scientist 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Boston, MA 

USA 

jkritzer@edf.org

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 356
Kroese, Marcel

Director Training and Technical 

Liaison 

International MCS Network 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

mkroese03@gmail.com

Kruger, Elwin

Operations Manager 

Fisheries Observer Agency 

Luderitz 

NAMIBIA 

kruger@foa.com.na

Kupcha, Erin

Fishery Biologist 

NOAA/Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

erin.kupcha@noaa.gov

Kurkul, Patricia 

Regional Administrator/ North 

East Region 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Gloucester, MA 

USA 

pat.kurkul@noaa.gov

Kuruc, Michele

Senior Fishery Industry Officer 

FAO 

Rome 

ITALY 

michele.kuruc@fao.org

Labaree, Jonathan 

Sector Initiative Program 

 Portland, ME 

USA 

jlabaree@gmri.org

 

LaFargue, John 

 Logistics Coordinator 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

 Eureka, CA 

 USA 

john.lafargue@noaa.gov

Lagerwey, Nathan 

 Special Agent 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service Office of Law 

Enforcement 

Anchorage, AK 

USA 

nathan.lagerwey@noaa.gov

Lay, Karen 

Data Coordinator-Obsrvr Srvces 

Archipelago Marine Research 

Ltd. 

 Victoria, BC 

 CANADA 

karenl@archipelago.ca

Lefferson, Chad 

 Project Manager 

 IAP Worldwide Services 

 Pascagoula, MS 

 USA 

chad.lefferson@noaa.gov

Lemire, Carl 

 A.I.S., Inc./ NEFOP 

 East Falmouth, MA 

 USA 

carl.lemire@noaa.gov

Lengares, Jennifer 

 Observer 

 A.I.S., Inc./ NEFOP 

 Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 

 USA 

Jennifer_lengares@yahoo.com

Lent, Rebecca 

Director 

Office of International Affairs 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

 Silver Spring, MD 

 USA 

rebecca.lent@noaa.gov

Lentell, Betty 

 Incidental Take Team Lead 

NOAA/Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program 

 Woods Hole, MA 

 USA 

betty.lentell@noaa.gov

Lindley, Michael 

Observer 

West Coast Groundfish Observer 

Program 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

USA 

lindleymb@yahoo.com

Litsinger, Emilie 

Project Manager 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Boston, MA 

USA 

elitsinger@edf.org

Litteral, Jennifer 

Director of Marine Programs 

Island Institute 

Rockland, ME 

USA 

jlitteral@islandinstitute.org

Loefflad, Martin 

Director, FMA Division 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

martin.loefflad@noaa.gov

Loveridge, Craig 

Research Data Analyst 

Ministry of Fisheries, NZ 

Wellington 

NEW ZEALAND 

craig.loveridge@fish.govt.nz

Lovewell, Alan 

Fishery Analyst 

NEFMC 

Newburyport, MA 

USA 

kroy@nefmc.org

Lugar, Jay 

Fisheries Outreach Manager - 

Americas 

Marine Stewardship Council 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

jay.lugar@msc.org

Lynch, Katie 

Fisheries Observer 

A.I.S., Inc./NEFOP 

Tuckerton, NJ 

USA 

klynch0286@aol.com

Lynch, Maureen 

 A.I.S., Inc. 

 New Bedford, MA 

USA 

maureen.mlynch@gmail.com

MacGregor, Paul 

General Counsel 

At-Sea Processors Association 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

pmacgregor@mundtmac.com

MacIsaac, Donald 

IT Manager 

A.I.S., Inc. 

New Bedford, MA 

USA 

donald.macisaac@noaa.gov

Majewski, Janell 

Observer Program Team Lead 

NWFSC/FRAM 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

janell.majewski@noaa.gov

Marcinkiewicz, Lauren 

Mid Atlantic Fisheries Assistant 

NOAA/Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

lauren.marcinkiewicz@noaa.gov

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 357
Markovina, Michael Epnis 

Marine Expedition Team Leader 

Moving Sushi Marine Resource 

Expedition 

Betty’s Bay Western Province 

SOUTH AFRICA 

michael.markovina@gmail.com

Martinsohn, Jann 

Scientific Officer/Ph.D. 

European Commission DG Joint 

Research Centre 

Ispra 

ITALY 

jann.martinsohn@jrc.ec.europa.eu

McArdle, Katherine 

Fishery Biologist 

NOAA/Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

katherine.mcardle@noaa.gov

McElderry, Howard 

Archipelago Marine Research 

Ltd. 

Victoria, BC 

CANADA 

howardm@archipelago.ca

McGowan, Tal 

Alaskan Observers Inc. 

San Francisco, CA 

USA 

temcgowan@gmail.com

McMahon, Rebecca 

Congressional Affairs Specialist 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

Washington, DC 

USA 

rebecca.mcmahon@noaa.gov

McVeigh, Jon 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Eureka, CA 

USA 

jon.mcveigh@noaa.gov

Moore, Sidney 

Operations Manager 

Javitech Ltd. 

Nova Scotia 

CANADA 

albert@javitech.ca

Moreau, Kelle 

Researcher Institute for 

Agricultural and Fisheries 

Research 

Oostende 

BELGIUM 

kelle.moreau@ilvo.vlaanderen.be

Moreland, Stefanie 

Extended Jurisdiction Program 

Manager 

Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game 

Juneau, AK 

USA 

stefanie.moreland@alaska.gov

Mrakovcich, Karina 

 Professor 

US Coast Guard Academy 

New London, CT 

USA 

bright_dawn@msn.com

Mungungu, Hafeni 

Chief Executive Officer 

Fisheries Observer Agency 

Walvis Bay 

NAMIBIA 

mungungu@foa.com.na

Murray, Kimberly 

Research Fisheries Biologist 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service - NEFSC 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

kimberly.murray@noaa.gov

Najah, Ahmed 

Observer 

Direction des Peches Maritimes 

et de L'Aguaculture 

Rabat Maroc 

MOROCCO 

najah@mpm.gov.ma

small_alba@yahoo.fr

Nance, James 

Supervisory Research Fishery 

Biologist 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Galveston, TX 

USA 

james.m.nance@noaa.gov

Ndaw, Sidi 

Manager of Bureau of Statistics, 

Fish Tech 

Office of Maritime Fish 

Dakar 

SENEGAL 

sidindaw@hotmail.com

Nedreaas, Kjell 

Head of Research Group 

Institute of Marine Research 

Bergen 

NORWAY 

kjelln@imr.no

Neves, Jose Elio 

APASA 

Cais de Stacruz Edificio da 

Lotacor 

Azores 

PORTUGAL 

apasa_op@hotmail.com

Neville, Ben 

Fisheries Observer 

A.I.S., Inc./NEFOP 

Salisbury, MA 

USA 

brneville14@aol.com

Nguyen, Thuy 

Senior Fisheries Officer 

WWF Greater Mekong Vietnam 

Country Program 

Hanoi 

VIETNAM 

thuy.nguyendieu@wwfgreaterm

ekong.org

Nishida, Tsutomu 

Scientist 

National Research Institute of 

Far Seas Fisheries 

Shizuoka 

JAPAN 

tnishida@affrc.go.jp

Meke Soung, Pierre Nolasque 

Veterinary Doctor and 

Economist 

Ministry of Livestocks, Fisheries 

and Animal Industries 

CAMEROON 

PierreMeke@yahoo.com

Orcutt, Mike 

Operations Manager 

Archipelago Marine Research 

Ltd. 

Victoria, BC 

CANADA 

mikeo@archipelago.ca

Paimpillil, Joseph 

Senior Researcher 

Center for Earth Research & 

Environment Management 

Kerala 

INDIA 

psjoseph@eth.net

Parkes, Graeme 

Deputy Managing Director 

MRAG Ltd. 

London 

UNITED KINGDOM 

g.parkes@mrag.co.uk

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 358
Pasco, Guy 

Industry Liaison Officer 

Centre for Environment, 

Fisheries, and Aquaculture 

Science 

Scarborough, North Yorkshire 

UNITED KINGDOM 

guy.pasco@cefas.co.uk

Passerotti, Michelle 

Fisheries Observer Coordinator 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

IAP Worldwide Services 

Panama City, FL 

USA 

michelle.passerotti@noaa.gov

Patabendi, Prabhath 

Head Education and Training 

Sustainable Fishery Program 

Inst of Human Development & 

Training 

North Malabe 

WESTERN SRI LANKA 

prabhthp@yahoo.com

Paton, Jennifer 

ASOP Operations and Training 

Assistant 

Archipelago Marine Research 

Ltd. 

Victoria, BC 

CANADA 

jenp@archipelago.ca

Pentony, Michael 

Senior Policy Analyst 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

Gloucester, MA 

USA 

michael.pentony@noaa.gov

Picard, Marcel 

Chief Enforcement 

Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada 

Québec 

CANADA 

marcel.picard@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Pitts, Charles Jr. 

 A.I.S., Inc. 

 New Bedford, MA 

USA 

cpitts767@aol.com

Plowman, Kevin 

United States Coast Guard 

Portland, ME 

USA 

kevin.f.plowman@uscg.mil

Pompert, Joost 

Observer Coordinator 

Falkland Island Fisheries 

Department 

Stanley 

FALKLAND ISLANDS 

jpompert@fisheries.gov.fk

Poshkus, Arvidas 

President 

A.I.S., Inc. 

New Bedford, MA 

USA 

arvidas@aisobservers.com

Powers, Mary 

Fisheries Observer 

MRAG 

Rochester, WA 

USA 

marypow@gmail.com

Prince, TrudiAnn 

Intern 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service/ 

National Observer Program 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

trudi.prince@noaa.gov

Puentes-Granada, Vladimir 

Ecosystems Division Advisor 

Ministry of Environment of 

Columbia 

Bogota 

COLOMBIA 

vpuentes@minambiente.gov.co

zanclus0715@gmail.com

Pulver, Jeffrey 

Field Coordinator 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service Observer 

Program 

Saint Petersburg, FL 

USA 

jeff.pulver@noaa.gov

Purcell, Catherine 

Knauss Sea Grant Fellow 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

National Observer Program 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

catherine.purcell@noaa.gov

Quinlan, Troy 

Manager - Operations 

Techsea International Inc. 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

troy@techsea.com

Quirijns, Floor 

Wageningen Imares 

Ijmuiden 

THE NETHERLANDS 

floor.quirijns@wur.nl

Ray, Ajit 

Professor 

University of North Bengal 

West Bengal 

INDIA 

akr.nbu@gmail.com

Reardon, Kathleen 

Marine Resources Scientist 

Department of Marine Resources 

Bureau of Resource 

Management 

West Boothbay Harbor, ME 

USA 

kathleen.reardon@maine.gov

Reed, Allison 

International Affairs Specialist 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

Washington, DC 

USA 

allison.reed@noaa.gov

Revill, Andrew 

Doctor 

Centre for Environment, 

Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Science 

Lowestoft 

UNITED KINGDOM 

andrew.revill@cefas.co.uk

Richardson, Deanna 

Associate 

Seefish Dockside Monitors, Inc 

Fair Haven 

CANADA 

leemanm@nbnet.nb.ca

Ringdahl, Katja 

Swedish Board of Fisheries 

Institute of Marine Research 

Lysekil 

SWEDEN 

katja.ringdahl@fiskeriverket.se

Robbins, Chris 

Gulf of Mexico Fish Program 

Manager 

Ocean Conservancy 

Austin, TX 

USA 

crobbins@oceanconservancy.org

Robbins, Glenn 

FV Western Sea 

Eliot, ME 

USA 

robbins62@comcast.net

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 359
Robertson, Matthew 

 A.I.S., Inc. 

 New Bedford, MA 

USA 

mattjrobert@gmail.com

Rodriguez, Luis 

Operative Director 

Nicaragua National Observer 

Program 

PANAMA 

lgrr24@gmail.com

Rojas, Ebol 

APO Board Member 

Association for Professional 

Observers 

Estado de Mexico 

MEXICO 

ebolred@yahoo.com.ar

Roman, Sally 

Fisheries Technician 

University of Massachusetts 

Dartmouth 

Fairhaven, MA 

USA 

sroman@umassd.edu

Rossman, Marjorie 

Research Fisheries Biologist 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service- NEFSC 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

marjorie.rossman@noaa.gov

Rowe, Stephanie 

Scientific Officer 

Department of Conservation 

Wellington 

NEW ZEALAND 

srowe@doc.govt.nz

Sanborn, Gregory 

 A.I.S., Inc. 

 New Bedford, MA 

USA 

gsanborn@mail.une.edu

Sanderson, Melissa 

Monitoring Program Manager 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook 

Fishermen’s Association 

North Chatham, MA 

USA 

mel@ccchfa.org

Sands, Cara 

Area Coordinator 

A.I.S., Inc 

Pt Pleasant, NJ 

USA 

caras@aisobservers.com

Sauls, Beverly 

Associate Research Scientist 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute 

Saint Petersburg, FL 

USA 

beverly.sauls@myfwc.com

Schivute, Peter 

Chief Control Fisheries 

Inspector 

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine 

Resources 

Walvis Bay 

NAMIBIA 

pschivute@mfmr.gov.na

Schmidt, Kelly 

Fisheries Observer 

A.I.S., INC/NEFOP 

Salisbury, MA 

USA 

kschmidt@post.com

Schnaittacher, Gwynne 

Program Manager 

A.I.S., Inc./NEFOP 

East Falmouth, MA 

USA 

gwynne.schnaittacher@noaa.gov

Schonknecht, Linda 

Marine Resource Expedition 

Professional Photographer, 

Media Head 

Moving Sushi Marine Resource 

Expedition 

Betty’s Bay Western Province 

SOUTH AFRICA 

l.schonk@gmail.com

Schrader, Jessica 

Senior Data Analyst 

Archipelago Marine Research 

Ltd. 

Victoria, BC 

CANADA 

jessicas@archipelago.ca

Schwenzfeier, Mary 

Shellfish Observer Program 

Coordinator 

State of Alaska 

Dutch Harbor, AK 

USA 

mary.schwenzfeier@alaska.gov

Scola, Peter 

 A.I.S., Inc. 

 New Bedford, MA 

 USA 

peter.scola@noaa.gov

Scott-Denton, Elizabeth 

Research Fishery Biologist 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

Galveston, TX 

USA 

elizabeth.scottdenton@noaa.gov

Segura, Alvaro 

By-Catch Program Officer 

WWF 

asegura@wwfca.org

Shama, Ryan 

Debriefer- West Coast 

Groundfish Observer Program 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

ryan.shama@noaa.gov

Showell, Mark 

Senior Assessment Biologist 

Bedford Institute of 

Oceanography 

Maritimes Region 

Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans 

Population Ecology Division 

Dartmouth NS 

CANADA 

showellm@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Smith, Cheree 

Fisheries Observer Coordinator 

IAP Worldwide Services 

Galveston, TX 

USA 

cheree.smith@noaa.gov

Smith, Cynthia 

Sector Coordinator 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

Portland, ME 

USA 

csmith@gmri.org

Snelgrove, Frank 

Ground Fish Enforcement 

Coordinator 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Nanaimo BC 

CANADA 

frank.snelgrove@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Stanley, Robert 

Technical Manager on Boat Data 

Systems 

Australian Fisheries 

Management Authority 

Canberra Act 

AUSTRALIA 

bob.stanley@afma.gov.au

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 360
Staples, Tyler 

Fisheries Liason 

NEFOP 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

tyler.staples@noaa.gov

Steele, Lori 

Fishery Analyst 

New England Fishery 

Management Council 

Newburyport, MA 

USA 

lsteele@nefmc.org

Stevenson, Bryan 

Vice-President 

Electric Edge Systems Group 

Inc. 

Victoria, BC 

CANADA 

bryan@electricedgesystems.com

Stewart, Darren 

Fisheries Observer Coordinator 

Saltwater Inc. 

Anchorage, AK 

USA 

darren@saltwaterinc.com

Stockhausen, Bjorn 

Joint Research Centre 

Maritime Affairs Unit 

European Commission 

Ispra 

ITALY 

bjorn.stockhausen@jrc.ec.europa

.eu

Stoehr, Christopher 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

 Honolulu, Hawaii 

 USA 

cmstoehr12@hotmail.com

Surette, Tim 

Special Projects Dockside 

Monitoring Program 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Dartmouth, NS 

CANADA 

surettet@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Szymanski, Luke 

Marine Projects Manager 

A.I.S., Inc. 

New Bedford, MA 

USA 

lukes@aisobservers.com

Taylor, Keri 

Operations Manager, Dockside 

Monitoring Programs 

Archipelago Marine Research 

Ltd. 

Victoria, BC 

CANADA 

kerit@archipelago.ca

Taylor, Peter 

Area Chief, Conservation & 

Protection 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Antigonish, Nova Scotia 

CANADA 

peter.taylor@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Tholke, Kris 

Fishery Biologist 

Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

kris.tholke@noaa.gov

Thompson, Lisa 

NOAA National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

lisa.thompson@noaa.gov

Todd, Steven 

Fisheries Observer 

Alaskan Observers Inc. 

El Cajon, CA 

USA 

todd.steve@sbcglobal.net

Tong, Amanda 

Fisheries Data Auditor 

NOAA/Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

amanda.tong@noaa.gov

Tooley, Mary Beth 

O'Hara Corp 

Small Pelagic Group 

Camden, ME 

USA 

mbtooley@roadrunner.com

Tork, Michael 

Fishery Biologist 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

East Falmouth, MA 

USA 

mtork@mercury.wh.whoi.edu

Towle, Emilee 

 A.I.S., Inc. 

 New Bedford, MA 

USA 

ektowle4@yahoo.com

Tremblay, Denis 

Strategic Advisor 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Dalhousie, Quebec City 

CANADA 

denis.tremblay@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Trumble, Robert 

Vice Prseident 

MRAG Americas, Inc. 

St Petersburg, FL 

USA 

bob.trumble@mragamericas.co

m

Turk, Teresa 

Fisheries Biologist 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service/National 

Observer Program 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

teresa.turk@noaa.gov

Ultanur, Mustafa 

Advisor 

Central Union of Fishermen’s 

Cooperatives 

Ankara 

TURKEY 

ultanur@gmail.com

Usher, Rick 

 A.I.S., Inc. 

 New Bedford, MA 

USA 

ricku@aisobservers.com

Van Atten, Amy 

Branch Chief, Fisheries 

Sampling Branch 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

amy.van.atten@noaa.gov

Van Helmond, Aloysius 

Wageningen Imares 

Ijmuiden 

THE NETHERLANDS 

edwin.vanhelmond@wur.nl

Van Leuvan, Tonya 

Environmental Defense Fund 

San Francisco, CA 

USA 

tvanleuvan@edf.org

Van Oordt, Francis 

Biologist 

Instituto Del Mar Del Peru 

IMARPE 

Chucuito Callao 

PERU 

fvanoordt@imarpe.gob.pe

Van Slooten, Shawn 

A.I.S., Inc/NEFOP 

Newport News, VA 

USA 

shawnappearsg98@gmail.com

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 361
Vandemaele, Sofie 

Research Scientist - Scholarship 

Biology 

Institute for Agricultural and 

Fisheries Research 

Oostende 

BELGIUM 

sofie.vandemaele@ilvo.vlaander

en.be

Vestre, Jason 

Observer 

West Coast Groundfish Observer 

Program 

Santa Barbara, CA 

USA 

observerjason@gmail.com

Vidal, Tiffany 

Fishery Biologist 

NOAA/NEFSC/NEFOP 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

tiffany.vidal@noaa.gov

Vieira, Sandra 

Observer 

West Coast Groundfish Observer 

Program 

Gold Beach, OR 

USA 

sandra.vieira@gmail.com

Villafana, Charles 

Fisheries Biologist 

Sustainable Fisheries Division 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Long Beach, CA 

USA 

charles.villafana@noaa.gov

Vogel, Augustus 

U.S. Naval Forces Europe and 

Africa 

Washington, D.C. 

USA 

augustus.vogel@gmail.com

Wagner, Nick 

Debriefer/ Fisheries Biologist 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service/PIRO 

Honolulu, HI 

USA 

nicholas.wagner@noaa.gov

Walia, Matthew 

Observer 

IAP Worldwide Services 

Coral Gables, FL 

USA 

mattwalia@hotmail.com

Walker, Garland 

Attorney 

NOAA/DOC/GCEL 

Juneau, AK 

USA 

garland.walker@noaa.gov

Walsh, Michael 

 A.I.S., Inc. 

 New Bedford, MA 

USA 

fishermanunh@yahoo.com

Walsh, Peter 

 Nx Step 

 Kittery Point, ME 

USA

peter.m.walsh@gmail.com

Ward, William 

Director of Legislative Affairs & 

Grants Director 

Gulf Fishermen’s Association 

Clearwater, FL 

USA 

freewillie09@yahoo.com

Watson, Jennifer 

Resource Management Specialist 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Juneau, AK 

USA 

jennifer.watson@noaa.gov

Watson, Sean 

United States Coast Guard 

So Portland, ME 

USA 

sean.k.watson@uscg.mil

Weiss, Maxfield 

Intern 

NOAA/ National Marine 

Fisheries Service/ Office of 

International Affairs 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

max.weiss@noaa.gov

Westwood, Azure 

Massachusetts Marine Fisheries 

Institute- School for Marine 

Science and Technology 

Fairhaven, MA 

USA 

awestwood@umassd.edu

Wetmore, Sara 

Fisheries Biologist 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

sara.wetmore@noaa.gov

Wigley, Susan 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Woods Hole, MA 

USA 

susan.wigley@noaa.gov

Williams, Gregg 

Research Program Manager 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission 

Seattle, WA 

USA 

gregg@iphc.washington.edu

Woods, Alec 

Trainer 

Nelson Marlborough Institute of 

Technology 

Nelson 

NEW ZEALAND 

alec.woods@nmit.ac.nz

Workman, Greg 

Section Head Groundfish 

Science 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Nanaimo BC 

CANADA 

greg.workman@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Wurster, Charles 

Observer 

South East Fisheries Science 

Center 

Miami, FL 

USA 

charles.wurster@yahoo.com

Zainudin, Imam 

Fisheries Program Leader 

WWF-Indonesia 

Jakarta 

INDONESIA 

imusthofa@wwf.or.id

Zaroug, Hussin 

Secretary of General Authority 

for Marine Wealth 

General Authority for Marine 

Wealth 

Tripoli 

LIBYA 

inof@gam-ly.org

Zhu, Jiangfeng 

Ph.D. Student 

University of Maine 

Orono, ME 

USA 

jiangfeng_zhu@umit.maine.edu

Zielinski, Patricia 

Fisheries Biologist 

NOAA/National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Silver Spring, MD 

USA 

patty.zielinski@noaa.gov

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 362
Appendix 6 

Commonly Used Abbreviations 

AA Aves Argentinas 

ABARE Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics 

ACL Annual Catch Limit 

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States 

ADFG Alaska Department of Fish & Game 

AFA American Fisheries Act 

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority 

AFSC Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process 

AIC Akaike Information Criteria 

AIDCP Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program 

AMR Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

AMSEA Alaska Marine Safety Education Association 

APO Association for Professional Observers 

ASHOP At-Sea Hake Observer Program 

ASOP American Samoa Observer Program 

ASOP At-sea observer program 

BC British Columbia 

BRTs By-catch Reduction Technologies 

BSAI Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands 

CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

CCCHFA Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association 

CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna 

CECAF Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic 

CENDEPESCA Centro de Desarrollo de la Pesca y la Aculcultura (El Salvador) 

CFP Common Fisheries Policy 

CFVS Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety 

CI Confidence Interval 

CIDA Canadian International Development Agency 

CoML Census of Marine Life 

CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort 

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (Australia) 

CSP Conservation Services Programme 

CV Coefficient of Variation 

DAS Days-at-Sea 

DCR Data Collection Regulation 

DFO (Department of) Fisheries & Oceans Canada 

DINARA Área de Recursos Pelágicos of the Dirección Nacional de Recursos Acuáticos 

 (Uruguay) 

DMS Data Management Systems 

DoFi Department of Fisheries (Vietnam) 

DWLLF Distant water long-line fleet 

EA Ecosystems Approach 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EAF Ecosystem Approach in Fishing 

EBM Ecosystem-based management 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 363
EIS Enterprise Information System 

ELB Electronic Logbook 

E-Logs Electronic Fishing Logbooks 

EM Electronic Monitoring 

EMS Electronic Monitoring System 

ENGO Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation 

EPIRBs Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon 

EPO Eastern Pacific Ocean 

EU European Union 

EVTR Electronic Vessel Trip Report 

FAD Fishery Attraction Device 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation 

FERF Fishery Enhancement and Research Foundation 

FFA Forum Fisheries Agency 

FFDA’s Fish Farmer’s Development Agencies 

FIMP Fisheries Information Management Program 

FIT Fisheries Interaction Team 

FLDRS Fisheries Logbook Data Recording Software 

FMA Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis (AFSC) 

FMP Fisheries Management Plan 

FOS Fisheries Operating System 

FoS Friend of the Sea 

FPN Fundación Patagonia Natural 

FRS Fisheries Research Services 

ft Feet 

FVSA Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina 

GCEL NOAA Office of General Counsel for Law Enforcement 

GCMD Global Change Master Directory 

GDP Gross Domestic Product 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GloBAL Global By-catch Assessment of Long-lived Species 

GPS Global Positioning System 

H&G head and gut 

HCE Humboldt Current Ecosystem 

HTB High-opening trawl 

IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 

ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna 

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management 

IDCP International Dolphin Conservation Program 

IEZ Inshore Exclusive Zone 

IFMP Integrated Fishery Management Plans 

IFOC International Fisheries Observer Conference 

IFQ Individual Fishing Quota 

IMARES Institute for Marine Resources & Ecosystem Studies (The Netherlands) 

IMARPE Instituto del Mar del Perú 

INP National Fisheries Institute of Ecuador 

IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 

IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission 

IREPA Istituto Ricerche Economiche per la Pesca e l’Acquacoltura (Italy) 

ITBP Innovative Technology and Business Process Program (DFO) 

ITQ Individual Transferable Quota 

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 364
IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated 

IVR Interactive Voice Response 

IW Integrated weight longlines 

IWPS Integrated weight longlines with paired streamer lines 

kg Kilogram 

LMRs Living Marine Resources 

LOOP Logbook-Onboard Observers Program 

MCS Monitoring, Compliance and Surveillance 

MFish Ministry of Fisheries (NZ) 

MFMR Ministry of Fisheries & Marine Resources (Namibia) 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act (U.S.) 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MPAs Marine Protected Areas 

MSA Magnuson Stevens Act 

MSC Marine Stewardship Council 

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

Mt Metric ton 

m Metre 

MUN Memorial University 

NAFO RA Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation Regulatory Area 

NBR National By-catch Report 

NEFOP Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NMFS) 

NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NMFS) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NERO Northeast Fisheries Regional Office 

NGOs Non-government organisation 

NIWA National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (New Zealand) 

NLMA Nantucket Lightship Management Area 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service, also NOAA Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (USA) 

NOP National Observer Program (NMFS) 

NOPAT National Observer Program Advisory Team 

NPFMC North Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

NPGOP North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program 

NSW New South Wales 

NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

NZ New Zealand 

NZ RLIC New Zealand Rock Lobster Industry Council 

NZFIB New Zealand Fishing Industry Board 

OBIS Ocean Biogeographic Information System 

OBR Observer Bill of Rights 

OBSCON Observer Contract database 

ODA Official Development Assistance 

ODS Operational Data Store 

OFCF Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation 

OLE NOAA Office of Law Enforcement 

OP Observer program 

OPWG Observer Professionalism Working Group 

OTBs Bottom trawl 

OTIS Observer Trip Information System 

OTL Ocean Trap and Line (NSW) 

OY Optimum yield 

PA Precautionary Approach 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 365
PBR Potential biological removal 

PBS Pacific Biological Station (Nanaimo, BC) 

PCR Polymerase chain reaction 

PDA Personal Digital Assistant 

pdf probability density functions 

PFD Personal Flotation Device 

PIFSC Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

PIRO Pacific Islands Regional Office 

PIROP Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program 

PNOFA Programa Nacional de Observadores a Bordo de la Flota Atunera Uruguaya 

POP Pelagic Observer Program 

POPA Azores Fisheries Observer Program 

PSC Prohibited Species Catch 

PTB Paired bottom trawl 

QAC Quality Assurance & Control 

QMS Quota Status Report 

RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police 

RFMOs Regional Fisheries Management Organisations 

RFOs Regional Fisheries Organisations 

RIMF Research Institute for Marine Fisheries (Vietnam) 

RONS Regional OBIS Nodes 

ROP Regional Observer Program 

SAPs Special Access Programs 

SARA Species at Risk Act 

SBT Southern Bluefin Tuna 

SCL Steering Committee Liaison 

SEAFDEC Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre 

SEDAR Southeast Data Assessment and Review stock assessment number ten 

SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

SET South-east trawl 

SG Sea Grant 

SP Service Providers 

SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community 

STB Single bottom trawl 

T tonnes 

TAC Total Allowable Catch 

TD temperature-depth 

TEDs Trawl efficiency devices OR Turtle Excluder Devices 

TFP Total Fish Production 

TRN Net Register Tonnage 

TTS Text to Speech 

US United States 

USA United States of America 

UIW United Industrial Workers (Alaska Fisheries Division) 

UK United Kingdom 

UN United Nations 

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 

UNIPESCA Unión Nacional de Pescadores Conservacionista (Guatemala) 

UNIVALI University Universidade do Vale do Itajaí 

USB cable Universal Serial Bus 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

UW Unweighted longlines 

UWPS Unweighted longlines with paired streamer lines 

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 366
VMS Vessel Monitoring System 

VTR Vessel Trip Report 

WCGOP West Coast Groundfish Observer Program 

WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 

WFT World Fisheries Trust 

WGL Working Group Leader 

WKDRP Workshop on Discard Raising Procedures 

WTO World Trade Organisation 

WWF World Wildlife Fund

Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 367
Proceedings of the 6th International Fisheries Observer & Monitoring Conference 

 368
U.S. Conference Host and Principal Sponsor

International Principal Sponsor

Conference Supporters

Fisheries and Oceans

Canada

Fisheries and

Aquaculture

Management

Pêches et Océans

Canada

Gestion des

pêches et de

l’aquaculture