openknowledge.worldbank/bitstream/handle/10986/24056/9781464809194.pdf. 2. Philip Christiani et al., “Precision Fisheries: Navigating a Sea of

434 KB – 74 Pages

PAGE – 2 ============
2CONTENTSAcronyms 3About this Report 4Updated Key Findings and Recommendations 6The Case for Electronic Monitoring 6Summary of Progress Against 2018 Recommendations 9Summary of Progress Against 2018 EM Growth Scenarios 13Updated Near-Term Recommendations for Advancing EM 14Progress Against 2018 Recommendations 231. Recommendations to Increase Demand for EM 24RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Demonstrate EM™s Capability to Improve Monitoring and Increase Demand for Accountability in Fisheries 26RECOMMENDATION 1.2 Make EM a National or Regional Priority 30RECOMMENDATION 1.3 Demonstrate New Use Cases for EM 30RECOMMENDATION 1.4 Use EM to Demonstrate Sustainability in the Marketplace 33RECOMMENDATION 1.5 2. Recommendations to Reduce the Cost of EM 38RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Build the Market to Create Economies of Scale 40RECOMMENDATION 2.2 Drive Hardware Cost Reductions 41RECOMMENDATION 2.3 Reduce Video Analysis and Costs and Streamline Data Transmission 42RECOMMENDATION 2.4 and Structures 463. Recommendations to Provide Technical Support to Regulators 48RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Provide Program Design Assistance 49RECOMMENDATION 3.2 4. Recommendations to Support Industry Leadership in Program Design 51RECOMMENDATION 4.1 EM Developments Around the World 53Bibliography 65Appendix A: Future EM Scenarios 68Appendix B: Summary of 2018 Recommendations 69Acknowledgements 73

PAGE – 3 ============
3ACRONYMSAFMA Œ Australia Fisheries Management AuthorityAIANABAC Œ National Association of Tuna Freezer Vessel ShipownersABNJ Œ Areas beyond national jurisdictionCABCEA Œ CEA ConsultingEFCA Œ European Fisheries Control AgencyEFPEM Œ Electronic monitoringETP Œ Endangered, threatened, and protectedFAD Œ Fish aggregating deviceFIP Œ Fishery improvement projectFSM Œ Federated States of MicronesiaGMRI Œ The Gulf of Maine Research InstituteHaV Œ Swedish Agency for Marine and Water ManagementHMS Œ Highly migratory speciesIATTC Œ Inter-American Tropical Tuna CommissionICCAT Œ International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic TunasICES Œ International Council for the Exploration of the SeaIOTC Œ Indian Ocean Tuna CommissionISSF – International Seafood Sustainability FoundationIUU Œ Illegal, unreported, and unregulatedMARPOL – International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ShipsMMPA Œ Marine Mammal Protection ActMSC Œ Marine Stewardship CouncilNGO Œ Non-governmental organization NMFS Œ National Marine Fisheries ServiceNOAA Œ National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationOEM Œ Original equipment manufacturerOPAGAC Œ Organización de Productores de Atún CongeladoPNA Œ Parties to the Narau Agreement PRIs Œ Program-related investmentsPSMFCR&D Œ Research and developmentREM Œ Remote electronic monitoringRFMOsRFQs Œ Request for quotationSeaBOS Œ Seafood Business for Ocean StewardshipSIMP Œ Seafood Import Monitoring ProgramSPCTAC Œ Total allowable catchTNC Œ The Nature ConservancyVMS Œ Vessel monitoring systemsWCPFCCommissionWCPOWGTIFD Œ Working Group on Technology Integration for Fishery-Dependent Data

PAGE – 4 ============
4ABOUT THIS REPORTIn 2018, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and CEA Consulting (CEA) released the report, fiCatalyzing the Growth of Electronic Monitoring in Fisheries.fl The report -age rates, basic human limitations that prevent viewing everything happening onboard, and even threats and bribery can limit data quality. The result is that the game right and ensure compliance with regulations. Electronic monitoring (EM), which is an integrated system of onboard cameras and sensors to record The 2018 report highlighted that, although growth of EM has historically The report presented several recommendations to catalyze EM growth. It has been 18 months since we presented this investment blueprint. This progress update report revisits the original recommendations, assesses the progress and updates the investment blueprint based on what has changed or been learned over the last year and a half.seafood companies, and EM service providers were interviewed as a part of this project, and their perspectives have been invaluable in synthesizing the current state of EM and collating an updated set of recommendations for advancing the tool. These perspectives have been supplemented with a review of the stakeholder community around how best to advance this tool.This analysis was commissioned by TNC and prepared in collaboration with CEA. CEA takes accountability for any errors or omissions in this report, and welcomes constructive feedback from readers by email:

PAGE – 6 ============
6UPDATED KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe Case for Electronic Monitoring1. World Bank Group, fiThe Sunken Billions Revisited: Progress and Challenges in Global Marine Fisheries,fl 2017, Philip Christiani et al., fiPrecision Fisheries: Navigating a Sea of Troubles with Advanced Analyticsfl (McKinsey & Company, 2019), harvest seafood that helps feed the world™s almost eight billion people. Fisheries managers have the enormous challenge of protecting the productivity and biodiversity of the oceans while also safeguard-ing the livelihoods of the millions of people who work along the seafood value chain. To sustainably ensure compliance with regulations.Managers have historically relied on a variety of tools to collect this data (e.g., logbooks, human observers, dockside monitoring, at-sea patrols), but these tools subject to bias or misreporting, and can be expensive managers lack the basic information they need to get are playing by them. Managers have been chronically often, ecological and economic decline. The World Bank estimates annual losses of $83 billion USD in global marine environment.1 Several emerging tools (e.g., Wave Gliders, Global Fishing awarenessŠa manager™s ability to understand who is out on the water, where they are, and what they are doing. This information can be critical to management needs and identifying illegal at-sea vessel rendezvous. But for about activities on board vessels to get a reasonable pic-discards, or interactions with endangered, threatened, EM is an integrated system of onboard cameras It is a powerful tool that can provide the detailed and compliance challenges. EM can also enable more (e.g., targeted sanctions, bycatch cap and trade systems) and create opportunities for seafood industry stake-holders to drive improvements in their operations and demonstrate legality and sustainability to the seafood marketplace.2 or other monitoring tools.Onboard EM camera, Seychelles. Photo: Kydd Pollock / The Nature Conservancy

PAGE – 8 ============
8However, there are several barriers preventing EM from scaling (Box 2). Consumer demand for sustainable seafood, is unlikely to drive EM adoption at scale as it is primarily limited to Northern European and North American markets. Even in those markets, consumers lack the information and bandwidth to choose products that are produced with comprehensive on-the-water monitoring. EM service providers may be underinvesting in government outreach and research and development (R&D) of new technologies such as risk, and the possibility that their investments will resource constrained, risk averse, and lack curated Finally, industry still sees EM as primarily a compliance These barriers can be overcome. Targeted philanthropic and public investment can:Ł Amplify market demand for EM.Ł Support technology innovation and operational improvements that reduce EM costs and improve functionality.Ł Provide technical support to regulators to de-risk, reduce the cost, and speed up EM program implementation.Ł Develop private sector incentives for adoption and promote industry leadership in EM program design.These investments can reduce uncertainty and and industry can say fiyesfl to EM.BOX 2 Market Barriers Limiting the Growth of EM Barriers to Government Demand for EMFishery management decisions require a thorough assessment of the costs, bene˜ts, and risks of implementation. But regulators considering EM for the ˜rst time have a lot of uncertainty, which can bias them towards inaction. More speci˜cally: Ł Governments may lack clarity about the scale of the current problem. In most cases, EM is being consid -ered in ˜sheries that do not have strong on-the-water monitoring. Therefore, regulators often lack a clear picture of the problem they are trying to address and its impact.Ł Will EM solve the problem and at what cost? Although EM has been around for more than two decades, newly implementing regions are often uncertain about whether it will solve their monitoring challenges and at what cost. They may also be concerned about building the capacity and skills needed to successfully implement an EM program and how EM may impact current monitoring programs. Barriers to Responsible Consumer DemandSustainable seafood demand has grown markedly in the last 15 years and has pushed the seafood industry to adopt better practices. But there are several barriers that limit consumers™ ability to make responsible purchasing decisions, which has limited retailer and food service industry demands for EM in their supply chains. Some barriers to responsible consumer demand include:Ł Bounded Responsibility : Faced with a slew of environmental and social issues, consumers cannot be aware of or expend the energy to be engaged with all of them. Ł Question of Impact : Even when consumers care about sustainable seafood, they may not believe that their consumption decision will make a di˚erence. Ł Information Overload : Even when a consumer believes strongly in an issue, making the right choice requires huge investment. Confronted with a ˛ood of marketing and information, consumers often resort to heuristics, which may lead to purchasing decisions that do not re˛ect their desired intentions. Barriers to EM Provider Investment With a small and slowly growing market, individual EM providers may be under-investing in activities such as government outreach and R&D that could lift the entire EM market. Barriers to Industry Support for EM In most cases, industry views EM primarily as a compliance mechanism that will constrain their ˜shing operations and cost them money. For industry, the potential bene˜ts of EM are often uncertain or not well understood. In addition, industry may have concerns about privacy, data management, and operational impacts on their business (e.g., catch handling requirements, hard drive exchange, interruptions because of inoperable systems).

PAGE – 9 ============
9Summary of Progress Against 2018 Recommendations fiCatalyzing the Growth of Electronic Monitoring in Fisheries.fl The report presented an investment blueprint for driving more rapid adoption of EM. There has been noteworthy progress on most of relevant opportunities. But investment has not been large enough nor development fast enough to put EM on track to break out of a business-as-usual growth scenario. A summary of progress during the last 18 months against the original recommendations follows. The recommendation updates are organized into four broad categories:Ł Increase Demand for EM Ł Reduce the Cost of EM Ł Provide Technical Support to Regulators Ł Promote Industry LeadershipProgress Increasing Demand for EM and compliance data gaps.Reports and studies continue to show that absent not have the information they need to meet sustainable tuna in the Indian Ocean, the death of a Kiribati observer, and the risk of a ramp up in illegal activity following Covid-19-induced reductions in monitoring are just a few of the recent examples of the need for stronger at-sea monitoring. At the same time, new EM trials and programs are demonstrating that the tool can provide the granular data about what is happening at sea, which of catch, especially for ETP species. While there is no comprehensive listing of EM projects, we have last 18 months which cover approximately 250 vessels. These new trials and programs are further demonstrat-commitments to improve on-the-water monitoring.commitments to improve monitoring and implement EM. These include commitments from industry (e.g., Thai Union, Luen Thai Fishing Venture), govern-ments (e.g., New Zealand, Chile, Federated States of -ment organizations (RFMOs). Ensuring that these com-mitments are met and continuing to demonstrate EM open the space for stronger accountability on the water and EM growth.EM is being used to demonstrate sustainability Market-based sustainability initiatives (e.g., eco- -ability solutions) and import regulations have provided Longline Tuna, Chilean Hake, Scottish Scallops, Maldives market™s bar for sustainability without robust monitoring in place. Strengthening data adequacy requirements of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard and exerting more pressure on retailers, foodservice, and branded seafood companies to drive monitoring Luen Thai Fishing Venture, Republic of the Marshall Islands. Photo: Kydd Pollock / The Nature Conservancy

PAGE – 10 ============
10improvements in their supply chain are needed to create stronger market incentives for EM. to industry from improved management enabled needs to be strengthened.Examples are emerging about EM supporting more increasing individual target and bycatch quotas, potentially scaling back time and area closures in the United States Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) views EM primarily as a compliance tool with few demonstrated to accelerate EM growth.New use cases for EM in areas such as labor in the development and testing phase.There is strong market demand for using EM to monitor both labor practices and transshipment activities. Progress is being made on both these fronts, including on-the-water testing of transshipment monitoring as a part of the Tunago FIP. This trial showed that EM could verify transshipment events and the were no illegal activities occurring. The EM system in this trial operated continuously for over one year at sea. While progress has been a bit slower on labor monitor-ing, there have been extensive conversations between environmental and labor rights groups that have set the stage for on-the-water demonstrations. More investment is needed to advance these new use cases for EM so they are ready for the wider market.Progress Reducing the Costs of EMVideo review costs often make up the lion™s share of EM program costs and there is enormous interest among EM customers to speed up or fully automate this process with AI. Although incentives for EM service providers are not fully aligned with AI development since they often has been made in the last 18 months. This includes the development of Fishnet.AI, a library of 100,000 tagged EM images to support AI development. There have also been several proof of concept demonstrations Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Washington™s collaboration on species important events, length measurement assistance in New England).Tunago 51. Photo: Kydd Pollock / The Nature ConservancyLength measurement using AI, Rhode Island. Photo: Ayla Fox / The Nature Conservancy

PAGE – 11 ============
11EM service providers™ experience with implementing AI has been uneven. A small segment (e.g., Satlink, Integrated Monitoring, SnapIT) have AI as part of their providers acknowledge the potential, but AI has not made the leap to product-ready solutions delivering obvious functionality improvements that deliver cost savings to customers. The two biggest challenges to address are (1) providing high quality labeled data to eliminate the cold start7 problem for model develop-ment, and (2) operationalizing AI models within existing technology stack (e.g., smart cameras, cloud). Getting over this hurdle will require more investment, deep technical support, and strategies to de-risk development for EM service providers and their partners.innovations to achieve program objectives at lower cost continue to advance.Recent research has explored what share of video needs to be reviewed to meet overall program objectives. For example, research in New England is 20 percent yields limited improvements in the accuracy of discard estimates for most species in a multispecies investigations of risk-based auditing approaches that can further focus video review resources on the are essential to drive down video review costs in the near term until AI progresses to the point that it unlocks 7. The cold start problem refers to the issue that software is unable to make accurate inferences about events need to be evaluated.Performance-based standards, third-party contracting, industry-driven multi-provider program structures, and fiEM as a Servicefl are all being actively explored as ways to make it easier for stakeholders to say fiyesfl to EM. Multiple providers are supplying systems for under fiEM as a Servicefl contracts, and FSM is rolling out scalable EM performance standards for pelagic longline government capacity requirements, reduce transaction EM provider hardware and software improvement, and but they have yet to be widely tested. Proving the EM service providers have developed lower cost progress has been made reducing hardware cost for systems on larger vessels.Although typically a smaller share of overall program costs than video review and data management, the hardware costs of EM systems are a concern for industry and governments alike. The 2018 report set a target of driving hardware cost reductions of 50 percent by 2021. Several companies are releasing lower cost EM systems designed for smaller vessels (e.g., Anchor Lab™s Lite system, Satlink™s SeaTube Nano, Saltwater), but there is no evidence that the hardware costs of systems for to push for hardware cost reductions will be helpful, but ultimately, meaningful price reductions will come through growing the size of the EM market and realizing economies of scale.Onboard Satlink system, Republic of the Marshall Islands. Photo: Lucas Bonetti

434 KB – 74 Pages