Design Considerations to Optimize Monitoring for Pacific Region Fisheries
Creators: name: Meintzer, Phillip
name: McElderry, Howard
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2019
Subjects: subject: 70403 Fisheries Management
subject: FOS: Agriculture, forestry and fisheries
subject: FOS: Agriculture, forestry and fisheries
subject: 70499 Fisheries Sciences not elsewhere classified

description: McElderry, H., Meintzer, P. 2019. Design Considerations to Optimize Monitoring for Pacific Region Fisheries. Unpublished report prepared for the Pacific Region Monitoring and Compliance Panel, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) by Archipelago Marine Research, Ltd., Victoria, BC. 40p.<br><br>Comment on a draft national fishery monitoring policy and guidance on implementing the national fishery monitoring policy:<br>This paper provides an overview of Pacific Region fisheries and their underlying catch reporting tools, with the aim of examining integrated approaches for fishery monitoring and identify design considerations to assist managers when considering ways to address monitoring system weaknesses. This purpose aligns with Step 4 – Specifying Monitoring Requirements of the National Fishery Monitoring Policy Implementation Guidelines (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2018a).Canada’s Pacific Region fisheries contain a diverse array of capture species, harvest groups and fishing methods; and the information systems that are built around these fisheries are equally diverse in structure and content.Catch reporting has been defined in terms of an assortment of methodologies, called ‘catch reporting tools’ that provide data to an integrated information system, called the ‘catch monitoring system’. At a basic level, the tools are separated into two categories; those that acquire data directly from the fishery participants, termed ‘self-reporting’ tools, and those that involve dedicated investments to independently gather data from the fishery participants, termed ‘independent reporting’ tools.The information needs of all fisheries contain data elements that may limit or conflict with the self-interests of the individual fishery participants. Therefore, data collected from self-reporting tools will always be subject to credibility challenges, whether justified or not. Other factors such as the complexity of the data itself (e.g. species identification), and inconsistent methodologies (method and timeline for measurement) may also create data quality challenges with self-reported tools.Independent reporting tools typically provide more credible and higher quality data, but often at a substantially higher cost than self-reporting tools. Because these tools are essentially investments that layer over the operational activities of a fishery, the cost for these tools varies widely from fishery to fishery due to different fishery characteristics and other external factors. As well, there are different service delivery options for these programs that influence cost and efficacy.Within a fishery there may be multiple tools used to capture the full scope of information required. The integration of these catch reporting tools is a critical design process for a fishery. Several design considerations are presented in this document including the impact of fishery characteristics, efficacy of catch tools, cost factors, compliance issues, and coverage levels. Cost is a significant limiting factor for the application of many independent reporting tools. This is particularly the case because of the lack of proportionality between the level of investment and the desired results. For example, a 50% increase in the monitoring investment may only result in a marginal improvement in the quality of fishery data.The strength of fishery monitoring systems should be routinely evaluated, and improvements considered. In our view, improvements to fishery monitoring systems lie with new tools, improvements to existing tools, increased integration of existing tools, and measures to strengthen compliance, particularly in fisheries with a high self-reporting component. It is notable that that most Pacific Region fisheries are already using the catch reporting tools most suited to their specific fishery characteristics and information needs and examples of where new tools could be applied appear limited. Several avenues for improvements were identified, including reduced timelines, increased coverage levels (e.g., independent monitoring), greater emphasis on participant engagement and the use of technology. Recognizing that self-reported data are a component for most fisheries, and the only option for some, the level of catch reporting compliance is a key issue that potentially undermines the value these information systems. In most instances, compliance with self-reporting requirements is impossible to measure or verify directly.In terms of the National Policy and Implementation Steps, it appears that there remains a gap in ‘policy to practice’ relating to decisions for determining the specific monitoring measures most appropriate for each fishery. The high integration dependency among multiple tools and multiple design elements within specific tools points to a need for a more systematic approach to monitoring program design. While it is recognized that monitoring needs should be evaluated on a fishery by fishery basis, target and bycatch species in Pacific Region fisheries span multiple fisheries. This stove-piped fishery by fishery monitoring design may result in unintended consequences for participant trust and confidence when certain species have poor monitoring in one fishery and good in another. Given the inevitability of self-reporting continuing for many of the catch reporting systems, continuous effort is needed to ensure that trust and confidence in fishery information systems is achieved and maintained.