Executive summary

1. INTRODUCTION

An International Conference on Integrated Fisheries Monitoring was held in Sydney, Australia, 1-5 February 1999. The Conference, co-hosted by Australia and Canada, was organised in co-operation with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and with the support of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USA, and the New South Wales Department of Fisheries, Australia (Table 1).

World-wide agencies actively developing and implementing monitoring practices along with local and international industrial representatives and conservation organisations were represented by 160 delegates from 26 Countries (Table 2).

2. BACKGROUND

The FAO/Japan Technical Consultation on Wastage in Fisheries, which was held in Tokyo in 1996, identified the lack of reliable data at a basic level, from the majority of global fisheries, as an area of key concern, particularly when attempting to estimate global discards. The Tokyo meeting highlighted the need to acquire more accurate data on key problems such as the discarding of fish and the incidental mortality of non-target species. One of the principal recommendations of this meeting was that an international conference on fisheries monitoring be held to address these and associated issues.

Table 1. The International conference on Integrated Fisheries Monitoring; The affiliations and responsibilities of the conference Organising Committee:

Chief Rapporteur: David Agnew (Imperial College, UK).

* Currently: Senior Fisheries Officer, FAO Sub-Regional Office for Southern Africa
** Formerly: Senior Fisheries Scientist, Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

Table 2. The International conference on Integrated Fisheries Monitoring; Participants by sector.

Main Representative Agencies; Australia: New South Wales Fisheries, Canada: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, USA: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Recent developments designed to assist in the establishment of responsible fisheries management regimes have also highlighted the need for reliable data collection from fisheries. In particular, both the United Nations Agreement on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and Straddling Stocks (UNIA) and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing cite the need for the collection of good quality data from fisheries in order that high standards of fisheries research are achieved, and confidence generated in the assessments of target stocks and the subsequent management analyses and strategies.

The Sydney conference approached the challenges and problems of fisheries monitoring common to many fisheries by identifying five main themes and stimulating discussion with invited speakers and panel guests through open forum participation, panel discussion and workshop groups.

A brief overview of the issues, challenges and possible solutions which were discussed in each theme session are presented below.

3. THEME 1: RATIONALE FOR MONITORING PROGRAMMES - CONCEPTUAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS

3.1 Challenge statement: Are the frameworks adequate?

Relevant papers:

Papers delivered under theme 3 (Hall, Lewis, Matsuoka, Chesson, Punt and Schirripa) are also relevant reference papers to this theme)

Current monitoring and data collection practices are commonly questioned and reviewed to determine whether the data collection systems in place are reliable and capable of collecting data of adequate quality and coverage to allow good estimates of key fisheries parameters to be made. Of particular an increasing concern is the inability of programmes, in many areas of the world, to estimate discards and non-target species mortality effectively

The design of data collection and monitoring programmes is increasingly the focus of much attention and analysis. There is general agreement that programmes should have a clearly defined role (i.e. Monitoring, Control or Surveillance) from the outset and a set of operational targets which the programme will be directed to achieve. Of equal importance is the requirement for sufficient and often substantial resources to be allocated to design phase of a monitoring programme.

3.2 Operational mechanism

The operational mechanism involved in the collection of fisheries data has seen significant recent developments and is an area of fisheries management where change is likely to occur in response to financial, logistical and operational demands.

In many fisheries there is a trend towards the increased involvement of fishers in the data collection process. This is only feasible, however, where;

1. Data collection is within the competence of the fishers;
2. The activity is accepted as a priority component of operational procedures;
3. There is no incentive to cheat or falsify records, and
4. Where the data are validated.

Where commercial fisher data is collected there is a complementary requirement for additional, independent, data collection schemes to assess and monitor the data quality of fisher schemes.

In many instances biological or scientific observers provide a mechanism for the collection of accurate, representative data. These personnel have the training and flexibility to cope with changes to management and monitoring objectives and can assist in generating confidence in the system and ensuring that there is seen to be equity in monitoring cover between different fleet sectors.

The process of data collection requires predetermined and appropriate sampling strategies to be in place based on standard scientific sampling designs, including randomisation, stratification and replication.

The use of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) methods, which were developed for the food processing industry as a logical business approach to the orderly conduct of a highly regulated industry, can enable monitoring to be focused, and therefore, more efficient, but where these are used the data collection regime must be balanced by the need to maintain a broad information base which can be used to tackle hitherto unforeseen problems in imaginative ways.

Consideration must also be given to inclusive, feedback mechanisms which facilitate the making of informed decisions about the monitoring programme. Such mechanisms should involve interest groups providing, inter alia, management, scientists, fishermen, and NGOs inputs. Such an approach leads to mutual confidence in data which in turn develops a mutual confidence in the assessment of resource status and the necessity for management measures.

3.3 Responsibility for funding

Cost recovery in the majority of fisheries monitoring programmes remains a contentious issue. There is an increasing trend to recover monitoring costs from those active in the fishery. However, problems will arise, especially with monitoring systems that put increasing responsibility for data collection upon fishers, when stock declines lead to decreased profitability and decreasing catches. In such circumstances, commercial contributions should be scaled to ensure that monitoring continues to be adequate within financial constraints. It is also essential that government maintains some independent monitoring responsibilities.

3.4 Consistency of output

Consideration must be given to the standardisation of data handling and monitoring output, leading to comparability and statistical confidence in the data collected from like fisheries and in the results of subsequent analyses. The use of complimentary data sources can rapidly identify and assess changing situations, and have the ability to act in a diagnostic capacity when unexpected phenomena induce changes to the fishery regime.

A well structured and managed integrated approach to data collection involving both fisher, administration (e.g. port sampling, landings recording) and at sea observer monitoring should result in improved data quality and representation, contributing to more accurate assessments of target stocks. Information from scientific observers, which although sometimes qualitative, nevertheless contributes to the development of hypotheses about system behaviour which in turn contributes to improved assessment algorithms.

The advantages of a multi-point approach to monitoring are that mutual trust and increased confidence in management requirements is generated between all interest groups. In many instances, otherwise difficult issues such as, the development of bycatch avoidance mechanisms, may be mutually agreed when based on observations about the bycatch species made by all contributing parties. This mechanism therefore, has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the ecosystem and environmental complexity by all parties. Such unity of approach may result in an improved understanding of the fishery by stakeholders and an associated compliance with regulations, through increased confidence in the mutual benefits of the management regime.

In summary, management systems must be objective driven and become more inclusive, encouraging incentives based on mutual interest. Where the data collection/collation costs associated with more complex monitoring systems are an issue, this may be solved using a variety of developed and developing IT and satellite technology solutions.

Organisational and structural changes may be necessary in the way that management is effected; The Integrated Conservation and Management System being trialed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, and the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) technique may be used to effect in this regard.

3.5 Observers

There is something of a continuum in the functions of observer programmes from enforcement and surveillance through advice/warnings, to liaison and public relations.

The exact function of observers must be determined from the outset of a monitoring programme and observers within the programme instructed implicitly and without reserve on the nature of their role. In the majority of fisheries where observers are employed to collect fisheries independent data a compliance-science conflict always has the potential to develop. Many enforcement agencies use observer data as supporting evidence in compliance cases, and often use observers as expert witnesses. Unless it is specifically prohibited, observer information will almost always be used at some time to address compliance issues. The use of scientific observers in this way is likely to compromise scientific observer function.

Requiring observers to note issues of possible compliance interest, reduces the time spent on biological observations and forms a distraction from making clear, objective observations of biological and ecological issues.

Once it is acknowledged that the information collected by scientific observers may be used for compliance purposes the behaviour of fishers generally alters to reflect this probability. This may be an advantage in fisheries with a 100% monitoring presence because it encourages compliance. It may be a disadvantage in other fisheries, when a reduction from 100% compliance generates observations which are no longer representative of the whole fleet.

The main complication with compliance-science conflicts is that unrepresentative data arising from vessels displaying altered behaviour is likely to be subsumed into general observer databases, reducing the quality of such data and the confidence of any stock assessments generated using this data.

Of equal importance is that the co-operation and freedom extended to observers by the officers and crew of vessels may be adversely effected and in some instances the safety of observers may become compromised. In other situations there may be an incentive to bribe observers or associated staff to avoid compliance digressions being reported or to alter basic fisheries data.

Although observers may be used effectively in compliance issues, their use in this capacity must be balanced against the danger of corruption of good scientific data. Generally, where there is a specific compliance problem, the application of direct action, using appropriately trained staff, would be preferable to using observers to address it. Observers could then be given a purely scientific monitoring function.

3.6 Outstanding problems

There are significant gaps in the international legal frameworks for monitoring and there is a need to address the following failings of international instruments;

1. There is no uniform delimitation of monitoring obligations of states, or sanctions on failure to discharge those obligations;
2. There is no uniform standard of data collection quality;
3. There is no mechanism for exchange of data and information, which necessarily leads to some duplication between organisations/states;
4. Non-parties and flags of convenience vessels operate outside agreed data collection frameworks, so undermining the increase in data quality achieved by parties to such frameworks;
5. There are commercial confidentiality concerns, especially with the use of VMS and real time information;
6. With the increasing and widespread use of observers in national and international monitoring systems, a clear statement of their function should be made in order to ensure awareness of their purpose for both fishers and management agencies, and
7. The UN Agreement on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and Straddling Stocks (UNIA) offers a framework for the solution to some of these problems, and its ratification is encouraged.

4. THEME 2: PERSPECTIVES ON MONITORING FROM KEY STAKEHOLDERS

4.1 Challenge statement: Why support monitoring?

Relevant papers:

Industrial support of monitoring is dependent on a clear demonstration of the economic and logistic efficiency of such programmes. Monitoring programmes must as a result, be shown to be cost effective and specifically targeted, avoiding the collection of irrelevant, redundant or biased data. The programme, as a priority, must also maintain the confidentiality of the information collected.

Of particular importance to industry is the fact that monitoring programmes must have active government support for industry initiatives and be undertaken with the active inclusion of all participants (industry, science and management).

From a management perspective, monitoring programmes must have a clear separation of enforcement and scientific functions which must be understood by all participants. In agreement with industry, the efficient and justifiable use of financial and human resources determining the coverage level, design and strategy of monitoring programmes is of primary concern to managerial administrators.

Scientific researchers identify that good research needs and good monitoring provides, reliable data, sound analyses and creative ideas. When these criteria are satisfied the benefits to the fishery constitute an increased knowledge of the target stocks and provide valuable direction on fishing strategies and management advice to all participants.

Economic and social monitoring should be considered alongside scientific monitoring to enable confident assessment of the full impacts of management decisions - not just on the target stock but on the communities involved exploiting the stock. The effects of education, standards and sanctions for breaches at a socio-economic level is therefore, a necessary consideration at this level of the managerial process.

Although socio-economic effects are recognised as significant issues in the management of fisheries, stakeholders agree that the primary objective of all sectors is the sustainable use of resources. The minimisation of social impacts at differing levels of exploitation should be seen as a secondary objective.

It is generally accepted that the collection of data by the industry generates increased confidence within the industry in those data, leading to a better acceptance of the resulting analyses and management decisions. There is an identified need, however, for the development of agreed standards of data collection between industry and government and other stake holding sectors. Such a policy of collaboration could facilitate agreement by stakeholders and government on observations and analyses arising from monitoring which could be manifested through the development and implementation of pre-agreed responses to events within the target fishery or upon a specific stock unit (e.g. a level of bycatch that will lead to an area closure).

Industry, in response to consumer demand needs to further develop the "clean fishing" image increasingly required by consumers. Managers and scientists need to recognise this consumer requirement and contribute to the public demand for confidence in the management of fisheries, through the development of a "sustainably managed" image for their fisheries in the support of industry.

Of particular concern to a number of key stakeholders is the role of enforcement in monitoring programmes. Highly punitive sanctions are generally considered to be counterproductive in systems which have a high degree of industry/government participation and do not contribute to the safeguarding of co-operating fishers interests.

Co-operation and collaboration between stakeholders, leading to a greater degree of user confidence within this group, has the potential to lead to greater information flow between contributing parties and allow further development of accessible databases on basic biological information, stock management issues and fishing strategies. Such a target provides stakeholders with an achievable goal of mutual benefit.

5 THEME 3: DESIGNING, EXECUTING AND ANALYSING MONITORING PROGRAMMES

5.1 Challenge statement (1) : When is enough enough?

Relevant papers:

The implementation of integrated fisheries monitoring programmes requires a balance between the benefits perceived to be arising from such programmes and their cost. This necessitates a clear appreciation of the reasons for monitoring in support of specific management objectives. Determining when enough monitoring has been achieved requires the weighting of monitoring cost(s) against the desired outcome(s) of monitoring and the attached value of the fishery concerned. It is therefore, clear that there will be no single answer to the question "when is enough enough?" that can be applied to all fisheries monitoring.

There are a number of recommended pre-requisites required before an adequate level of cost-effective monitoring can be determined which should be applied in an iterative fashion.

Questioning the reasons for monitoring and the attached management objectives allows a clear statement of these objectives to be made which then provides a template for further programme design and development. Such management objectives should be defined in objective and measurable terms with priority being attached to monitoring aimed at reducing the uncertainty in the determination of key parameters.

Similarly, the decision rules defining the levels of variability to be detected by the monitoring programme, should be developed and as far as possible pre-determined at the design stage. Strategic input from expansive pilot studies designed to determine the likely levels of variance to be encountered in the parameters being monitored is highly advantageous in the design and usefulness of the resultant monitoring programme. The information gathered by pilot studies and/or by other methods can also be used at this stage to determine the effect on the data confidence and logistics of different levels of monitoring. Simulation studies can also assist in the determination of the levels of monitoring to be applied in meeting pre-specified, management objectives at desired levels of precision.

A common feature of some of the presentations of these studies suggests that there is often a discontinuity or "kink", in the relationship between increased monitoring (% observer coverage of the fleet) and the variance of the estimated parameter (such as the quantity of non-target species caught or discarded). While this relationship does not demonstrate the effectiveness of monitoring effort in relation to assessments and management, which may be affected by many other sources of uncertainty, it may suggest a simple and easily understood measure of the effect of different levels of coverage.

The determination of the level of monitoring requires that stakeholders address and recognise the potential payoff between increased precision in the estimation of monitored parameters and the attached investment in time, money and/or resources associated with increased levels of monitoring.

The desired extent of monitoring in terms of both cover and intensity should be evaluated as a function of the improvement in precision associated with the estimation of parameter(s) against the increased costs associated with increased monitoring. This should be considered in relation to the overall value of the fishery and/or its attendant management needs.

5.1.1 Outstanding Problems

There are still likely to be operational, logistic and performance difficulties even with established monitoring programmes. One of the most common problems identified is at a fundamental level. The general criticism of many stakeholders is that more attention should be given to the key areas of overall design, the provision of a justifiable mission statement and the identification of costs and the process of cost recovery, prior to the implementation of monitoring programmes.

In many instances established monitoring programmes are recognised as limited in their ability to assess discard rates (especially in mixed fisheries) and specific by-catch in certain areas. In other circumstances some analyses are hindered due to the obvious inability of monitoring programmes to address past deficiencies in the accrual of data which may be necessary to underpin critical management issues. As current monitoring programmes provide the historical data of the future they should be objective driven and coupled with clear management decision rules in the support of specific management objectives and exercised on the basis of the analysis and processing of the collected information.

5.1.2 Summary

The implementation of appropriate monitoring programmes requires clear and measurable statements of the management, or other objectives, being addressed. Monitoring needs need to be prioritised in respect of the perceived importance of the management objectives with management decision rules exercised on a predetermined basis. In many fisheries the ability to evaluate the overall benefits of monitoring against the value of the fishery is limited and where this occurs this should be the subject of investigation designed to redress this situation.

5.2 Challenge statement (2): Tools and technology - Putting it together

Relevant Papers:

The primary monitoring system objectives of fisheries monitoring programmes are generally agreed to be or include, catch estimation, contribution to science, quota management, vessel specific performance and compliance. Clear management and science objectives, dependent on the return of quality data from all monitoring sources, are essential from the outset of the planning and design phases. Similarly, monitoring programmes require a clear statement of objectives linked to both government and industry requirements

Although new technologies may be introduced into monitoring systems as they develop, there is a basic requirement in all programmes for independent, verifiable data and some at-sea monitoring capacity that can be provided in a cost effective manner.

Technological enhancements to monitoring systems, such as vessel monitoring systems (VMS) are recognised as progressive and effective monitoring tools, particularly in fisheries where catch composition is not an issue. As technology progresses, is implemented and accepted in many fisheries, a concurrent need develops for a significant training component to be incorporated into the stakeholder educational processes.

In the majority of fisheries and particularly those dominated by climates of fiscal restraint, difficulties are commonly encountered with the enhancement of monitoring capacity including training needs. Problems are also associated with the introduction of technical solutions to enhance monitoring capabilities. In general there is a reticence to introduce new technology which in many instances can be novel, untested and expensive. In consequence it is no surprise, that successful introductions of new technologies have only occurred where no significant increase in costs has been incurred to the programme often taking the form of co-development trials. Such co-operation has the ability to encourage the continued development and implementation of cost effective technological solutions to expensive monitoring requirements (e.g. Vessel Monitoring Systems).

Technological advancement should see progress in the automation and standardisation of vessel monitoring systems (VMS). Development of standards, for comparative and data exchange purposes, should include protocols for data validation, security and confidentiality, and be directed towards an endpoint of international standardisation in this area.

Technological advancement is expected to include further testing in areas such as electronic scales in DMP and the cost-effective transfer of video imagery from vessels at sea. Application of this technology, in the context of its use as a compliance monitoring tool will, however, require concurrent debate and agreement on the legal status of electronic records and images prior to the acceptance and implementation of this technology in an effective and worthwhile capacity.

5.3 Challenge statement (3): What is being done around the world?

Relevant Papers:

To address this topic literally, would have required an exhaustive review of all aspects of fishery monitoring on a global scale. That was clearly beyond the scope of the Conference. Presentations and posters provided a range of case studies across a range of countries. While they gave some basis for considering the nature of existing approaches, even some major components of in-country monitoring were rarely addressed. The main focus of material provided was on observer and surveillance practices, with emphasis on trends in new technology like vessel monitoring systems (VMS). There was little mention of widespread, more `traditional' data collection like logbook programmes. Other aspects regarded as important but rarely addressed in presentations or posters were monitoring of recreational fisheries, indigenous fisheries, aquaculture operations and environmental signals (for example in the context of maintenance of biological diversity). While `fisheries' monitoring was addressed, there was no reference to monitoring of `fishers', an important topic given the significance of social issues in fisheries communities.

In most instances, the scope and nature of existing monitoring practices reflect the degree to which countries and their fisheries have developed. Artisanal fisheries collectively involve large tonnages of fish but commonly there are inadequate financial or infrastructure resources to support even basic monitoring, like catch estimation. In some African countries, for example, fundamental preoccupation with immediate priorities like food or survival in the face of military hostilities understandably relegates fishery monitoring to little relevance. In South Africa, changes to the basic nature of resource allocation have tended to destabilise previously developed fisheries, necessitating substantially enhanced monitoring and research. In other regions some major industrial scale, but illegal, operations require the application of sophisticated monitoring and surveillance technologies, with perhaps even global collaboration to share information on vessels repeatedly involved in infringements. Sophisticated technology is used routinely in the monitoring programs of developed countries like the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. While material in presentations and posters did not contain reference to Russian fishery monitoring practices, the point was made that their fleets' catch, effort and catch composition reporting was comprehensive, available in real time, and a model example.

Regional co-operation and collaboration has strengthened the monitoring capacity of some countries because of the information sharing and technology access that ensues. Programs in the South Pacific under the auspices of the Forum Fisheries Agency and the Secretariat for the Pacific Community are good examples. Another is the significant improvement in south and south-east Asian access to support for monitoring as a result of a Norway-funded FAO project to assist developing countries.

The adoption of new technologies like VMS has been received positively by industry, albeit after some initial uncertainty, because they come to realise that all operators are encompassed equitably. The technology has good prospects for further enhancement. It already provides a cost-effective way of obtaining vessel position information and scope for streamlining catch-reporting procedures. Nevertheless, checks and balances remain essential. Independent audit or validation processes are desirable to discourage cheating (by falsification of catch reports). However, auditing is also important to ensure that a high quality data monitoring process is maintained. Port monitoring provides one approach to validation, the use of liaison personnel having public relations benefits beyond compliance checking.

The need for checks and balances is not just land-based. There will still be a need for monitoring aboard vessels. Japan, once predominantly involved in distant water fishing operations, has seen a major relocation of activity to its coastal regions. There is a strong commitment there to local fisheries co-operatives, and as the co-operatives are responsible for auctioning most of the catch, catch reporting is usually undertaken by the co-operatives. While this provides good catch data, there is a gap in availability of the vessel-linked information needed for development of management programmes e.g. by-catch and discard data.

There is a growing interest in the involvement of industry in the collection of vessel-associated data. An example is the turtle-monitoring project in Australia's northern prawn fishery, where selected fishers have been trained to identify turtle species for by-catch reporting. Often fishers are keen supporters of the background motives of such work and their contribution can be invaluable. However, there is first a need to establish trust on both sides, and it is also important to undertake independent scientific verification of the data.

From an industry viewpoint the cost of monitoring can be considerable, especially where industry is providing the funding. There is a strong requirement, in consequence, to ensure that the funds are directed to activities that will provide the most cost-effective results. This highlights the prudent observation that the existence of a project is no guarantee that its results will be useful. Careful attention to design of the data collection is fundamental-the demand is not for `more' data, but for high quality data.

6. THEME 4: KEY COMPONENTS AND ISSUES FOR MONITORING PROGRAMMES. (BREAKOUT SESSIONS)

6.1 Challenge statement: Working out solutions to key issues!

6.1.1 Logistics and costs

This breakout session reinforced previous discussion and agreement on regular, structural and fiscal review of monitoring programmes. The dynamic nature of fisheries was identified as the primary justification for a regular review of best practices to maintain a high standard of operational efficiency and appropriateness and ensure that a cost-effective operation meets management needs.

In common with other subject areas, communication between stakeholders and clients was recognised as essential to set clear and achievable objectives in monitoring programmes. Feedback from monitoring programmes to local, regional and international bodies was identified as of primary importance in securing support for these programmes from stakeholders and the broader community. Increased communication between stakeholders at all levels when reviewing the cost-effective operation and temporal relevance of monitoring programs was identified as an important focus for improving the integration of stakeholders in many fisheries.

As a way to encourage communication and allow stakeholders to realise increased access to different disciplines, the development of the Conference web site or its incorporation into the FAO web site as an international register of stakeholders involved in fisheries monitoring was forwarded as a consensus solution addressing this issue. This information was also requested to be made available in hard copy for the benefit of monitoring programmes distanced from web access.

Such a site initially should contain such basic information as; the contact details of conference delegates by area of expertise, a bibliography by subject area and details of hot links to sites of related interest. The site could also be developed and utilised to make available fishery specific models with links to associated expertise.

6.1.2 Confidentiality of information

The issue of confidentiality of fishing data is a very complex one, involving the rights of the individual and of society. There are valid reasons for protecting information while at the same time benefit could be achieved by judicious distribution of the same information.

For every data gathering operation there must be a framework for identifying all of the data to be collected and a protocol must be established for subsequent handling and distribution of this data. In addition, there is a need to determine the legitimate needs for confidentiality and identify those areas where confidentiality is not and should not be an issue. Recognising that confidentiality requirements of specific programmes will change over time there is justification in making provision for the regular review and modification of data security protocols.

All users of the data and the fishing industry must be involved in establishing protocols for data confidentiality. Some elements to be considered in this process are conflicting governmental requirements (e.g., science vs. compliance), industry information requirements and desires for confidentiality, as well as the legislative and jurisdictional framework. There may be reasons to maintain confidentiality and other reasons to distribute information more freely. These must be weighed carefully. Some considerations are:

1. Fishing operations may benefit by sharing information (reduce bycatch, increase catch);
2. Increase catch value may be realised by fleet sharing information to control the market;
3. Information may enhance the fishing industry's image;
4. Sharing of information may increase safety or in other situations create safety problems;
5. Private initiatives weather it be gear innovation or personal fishing knowledge must be protected, and
6. The individual rights of fishermen must be considered.

Rules regarding confidentiality must be established at the outset of a fishery-monitoring programme. With proper planning and consultation among all parties confidentiality problems could be mitigated. The rules and protocols concerning confidentiality must be established within the constraints and conditions imposed on a fishery.

6.1.3 Improving the quality of fisheries monitoring nationally, regionally and internationally

There is a widespread recognition of the need for the preparation and recommendation of guidelines and standards for integrated fisheries monitoring. These could include observer/fisher training programmes/procedures, vessel monitoring systems, and international data exchange.

Guidelines should be prepared and standards defined (e.g. organisational/ national/ international) that would set up an overall, standard strategic framework to be used to set objectives, protocols, costs and logistics, including criteria for verification, evaluation and audit of fishery monitoring programmes. Those preparing guidelines and standards should set clear goals, objectives, and processes so that appropriate monitoring methods can be adopted. There must be a process of objective setting within the larger political process but the implementation of these objectives should preferably be removed from the political process.

The FAO Code of Conduct would be the over-arching framework for the preparation of these guidelines providing a minimum set of objectives for integrated fisheries monitoring which could usefully be expanded.

All stakeholders should be involved in the elaboration of such standards based on tangible, measurable objectives and have similar risk assessment approaches to those taken in ISO 14000 and HACCP. Standards should consider marrying education and extension with fishery monitoring activities and encouraging co-operation between industry, research, management and NGOs in this respect. Fishers can often be cost effective sources of information and the possibility of their greater use within appropriate, verifiable monitoring systems should be examined. The standards should ultimately aim to give the larger community confidence that its aquatic resources are going to be managed sustainably.

Monitoring standards would be placed in a larger ecosystem context and link to the management objectives of the particular country or region. To be applicable internationally, these would have to consider the particular situations of developing countries as these countries may not be able to implement monitoring guidelines which are framed within the context of highly regulated fisheries in developed countries.

6.1.4 Cost recovery: or, who pays for monitoring?

By determining the stakeholders who benefit from fisheries monitoring programmes costs can be attributed and then recovered.

Such a system would require the establishment of fishery-specific guidelines for attributing and recovering costs. It is accepted that there is usually some public benefit to fishing because exploited stocks are a common-property resource supplying food, export earnings, etc. and their proper research/exploitation/surveillance are in the owners' (i.e. the public's) interest. However, it is also the case that fishers who have access (often exclusive) also gain substantial economic benefit from monitoring and therefore, should contribute to its cost. The solution to the enigma of where to draw the line is fishery-specific but must involve a process of identifying appropriate policies via negotiation amongst the various user groups.

Funding for monitoring programmes in developing countries consists primarily of aid monies drawn from developed countries. Such funds, however, have declined in recent years leading to a greater requirement to recover programme costs locally. In the future it will become increasingly necessary to raise funds for monitoring in third world countries from the local communities who own the resource and the artisanal and industrial fishers who may exploit it. It is noted that in some cases the fishers in such countries are in a stronger economic position to fund such programmes than the general public. Monitoring funds in such instances could, therefore, be levied from licence systems.

In most cases funds for monitoring should be collected and controlled by governments - particularly if they are the agencies collecting fees for the right to access, catch and land the resource. However, in some cases (e.g. where industry deals directly with observer companies), there are financial advantages to removing the government "middleman". This approach can only be successful where strong protocols have been drawn up with government consultation and approval.

There are advantages of making monitoring a competitive enterprise with the private sector. Where this is now happening, costs have been reduced and the service provided improved. However, strict guidelines and protocols are needed to cover training, execution, and data quality and usage.

It is often necessary to "seed" funds into monitoring programmes to establish them during the high-cost initial stages - after which industry and other groups may be in a better position financially and philosophically to accept their continuation. It is accepted that this is usually best done by governments as it may be inequitable to charge initial users with such start-up costs yet not charge later entrants into the fishery such costs (who still will gain benefit from the setting up stages).

The issue of equity raises the question as to whether operators working in several fisheries, should be charged for costs associated with each fishery or only pay a single premium? Similarly, should costs be attributed across the whole fishery or at a more micro-level (individual boats undergoing particular operations)? Clearly, there is a point at which very small-scale attribution of costs becomes unworkable. It is accepted that any costs to be recovered should be proportional to the access right of the operator to the resource, irrespective of his/her operation in exploiting it. Recommendations in this regard were proposed as;

1. Encourage the development of fishery-specific policies for cost recovery among user groups that take account of the various levels of benefit derived from fisheries monitoring;
2. Make any existing policies accessible as examples of how to go through such a process of policy-development, and
3. FAO to co-ordinate the development of a generic guide to such policy-development.

6.1.5 Roles of observers - What should they be?

Although the simplistic role of an observer is to `Observe and Report' there are major issues which need to be recognised and clarified. Of paramount importance is the need to identify, at the planning and design stage, the conceptual and actual roles that observers may need to take in meeting compliance and science related objectives. In instances where achieving compliance objectives jeopardises the quality of scientific data, it is necessary to examine how this impacts other observer monitoring activities.

Although scientific duties should be tied to specific objectives it is difficult to suppress a compliance role in many cases where such feedback has an unwritten expectation. When a compliance role does exist in tandem with or in support of a scientific role there is a need to recognise the possible negative consequences of such a dual role upon the observer and build support mechanisms into programme in anticipation of such situations developing.

How observer services may best be delivered, particularly with moves to greater outsourcing and industry delivery of services, raises further issues of accreditation, verification and scrutiny. Observer services should be considered as being part of a `toolkit' that may include other more appropriate approaches or functions to meet different objectives, such as port sampling, VMS, aerial surveillance, patrol boat activity and future technology. In all cases the relative costs of alternative approaches need to be considered to ensure both effectiveness and efficiency, as well as the `package' of measures that might be needed to meet differing fishery resource management objectives. However, some functions, such as bycatch and discard monitoring, may not be achieved without observers.

These and related issues should be developed and clarified in full, with a view to developing agreed international understandings. In all cases every sector involved must be represented, including industry, management, surveillance and science.

7. THEME 5: INTEGRATED MONITORING - WHERE TO FROM HERE?

7.1 Challenge statement: Working out solutions to key issues

The Conference reviewed the highly significant inputs that had been made and in the view of the international context elaborated the recommendation set out below as an immediate output.

The recommendation takes into account that the situation would be improved through the preparation of guidelines that would set up an overall standard strategic framework to be used to set objectives, protocols, costs and logistics including criteria for verification, evaluation and audit of fishery monitoring programmes. The FAO Code of Conduct should be the over-arching framework within which these guidelines would be prepared. They should be based on tangible, measurable objectives and could include similar risk assessment approaches to those taken in ISO 14000 and HACCP. They should be placed in a larger ecosystem context and link to the management objectives of the particular country or region.

8. CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation presented to the 1999 meeting of COFI was that the FAO Fisheries Department should undertake the preparation of guidelines for the integrated monitoring of fisheries, within the context of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The aim should be to improve the management of fisheries and the sustainable use of living aquatic resources, through the formulation of an appropriate framework for the collection of relevant data and information from fisheries and their associated ecosystems.

The framework should seek to improve the quality of data available to support scientific and compliance issues and include environmental, socio-economic and ancillary data of value to fisheries management. In particular, improvement of data collection leading to better estimates of production and to the reduction of wastage in fisheries should receive priority.