Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS)

Namibian fisheries patrol vessel: MCS SADC Review

Poseidon adopts a practical and results-based approach through which we:

Identify the economic arguments for improved management. Such arguments may centre around the benefits of long term stock recovery in terms of increased value-added and resource rents from the fishery, and may be important in justifying increased MCS budgets. Policy and audit requirements increasingly dictate that deployment costs, or adjustments to them, require the support of a cost benefit analysis. Poseidon has developed a methodology that can be deployed to illustrate the advantages of MCS activities, which in some cases might require a short-term increase in activity and related budgets.

Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the management system. This can relate to differences between management systems (e.g. quotas, effort control, technical measures, etc) in terms of: their costs; and common infringements, their ease of detection and their impact on stocks under different management regimes. Recommendations can be made about whether the balance of management measures being used should be changed.

Examine the deterrent effects of penalties and the benefits of fisheries fraud. Examination of the financial rewards to fishers from different offences can be compared to the resulting penalties per offence and vessel type in light of inspection rates and the likelihood of infringements being detected during inspections. This can reveal whether current penalties are working as a suitable deterrent effect. Fisheries need to be examined on a segment by segment basis, with industrial fleets needing very different scales of penalties as compared to small-scale inshore/coastal fisheries. Recommendations can be made about appropriate combinations of penalties and the balance of administrative and/or criminal penalties, to include: fines; confiscation of gear/catch; short term and long term licence confiscation; and confiscation/detention of vessels.

Identify any constraints in the legal framework and the application of law. This analysis typically involves an evaluation of selected cases in terms of the penalties imposed and any legal constraints encountered. Analysis typically focuses on case preparation (including legal and practical issues in dealing with evidence), the frequency in getting cases to court, the length of time for concluding prosecution processes, and the determination of sanctions by the courts. An assessment is made of the strengths and weaknesses of the legal system based on discussions with inspectors and prosecuting authorities. Legislation is itself reviewed to consider whether modifications may be necessary.

Use risk analysis to identify critical control points. The rate of infringements in any country or region can vary greatly between fishing method, geographical location, and season. Risk analysis can be used to highlight key problem areas, and to allow for flexible re-deployment of inspection activities so as to increase the effectiveness of MCS activities by concentrating on these areas.

Evaluate progress in deployment strategies over time using cost efficiency analysis. Poseidon has developed an evaluation tool which tracks comparative efficiencies between different deployment means (based on the costs for each detection means against the number of offences detected each year), and analyses the progress of expenditure and results over a time series. The aim of this cost efficiency analysis is to link resources to outputs. Our approach compares and tracks the most efficient means of deployment in particular types of fishery, and helps to identify critical points where costs may need adjusting.

Consider optimal (re-)deployment strategies within and between human resources and capital assets. Experience suggests that the balance between human and capital resources is often heavily weighted in favour of capital-intensive options, notably offshore patrol craft, when cheaper marine platforms may be as effective, technology can replace or partially substitute other activities (i.e. the use of VMS instead of aerial surveillance), and when land-based resources and inspections may be more efficient in detecting some important types of offences. Analysis can also demonstrate the point at which deployment costs reach an optimal level, after which time increased budgets/resources provide little or no additional benefit in terms of increased detection of offences and/or deterrence. Re-allocation of deployment budgets between different deployment activities may be appropriate based on which offences are deemed most common, their impacts on fish stocks, and how effective different deployment means are at detecting different offence types. Poseidon can determine the numbers of inspectors that ideally need to be deployed (at sea and on land) given specific constraints which may include: the frequency and seasonality of vessel landings into port; the need to deploy two inspectors to optimise corroboration; the time allocated for an inspection; the validating and reporting requirements needed; the efficiency of computer systems to detect particular offences through cross-checks.

Consider the benefits of transport and factory inspections, and the use of forensic accounting. Increasingly, many control authorities are realising the benefits of engaging in a more holistic approach to inspection activities. This can be achieved by engaging in transportation and factory inspections, but also by the use of forensic accounting. Such activities may require inspection authorities to consider recruitment of staff with different skills areas (e.g. accounting) than previously considered important. Recommendations can be made about the frequency and targeting of such inspections and forensic work.

Potential benefits of improved information technology. The benefits of improved information technology (IT) in MCS activities can be considerable. Poseidon can make recommendations for example about how IT can be used to assist legal case management and improve prosecution rates e.g. through the use of electronic charts integrated into GIS or communication and evidence recording techniques. IT systems can also be used to more effectively conduct automated cross-checks of logbook information against VMS and surveillance information. Reviews can be conducted to consider existing lines of communication, data flows, storage and on-line accessibility by inspectors to data from different sources. IT infrastructure may need to be upgraded or modified to provide for enhanced communication between agencies and systems involved in MCS activities.

Set MCS targets and inspection benchmarks. Benchmarking and targets are often seen as a central plank for measuring enforcement efficiency. Poseidon can assist with the specification of a wide range of appropriate indicators to be used in monitoring and evaluation. These may relate to: inspection activity by different inspection means; offences detected by different inspection means; cost efficiencies of different means; issues related to administrative efficiency; and successful prosecution rates. Consider any necessary institutional reform. Institutional analysis and resulting recommendations can be made relating to: institutional capacity (e.g. skills, assets) and the key issues affecting institutional performance (e.g. leadership, resources/budgets); institutional performance; institutional motivation; and inter- and intra-institutional linkages. Improvement in these areas can greatly increase the effectiveness of institutions engaged in MCS activities.

Establish inspection protocols and Standard Operating Procedures. Inspection processes can be improved through the specification and use of protocols and SOPs. Existing instructions and manuals for different control methods can be reviewed along with the uniformity of their use. A key area of concern is often found to be a poor communication of procedures to stakeholders, and the lack of formalised mechanisms for their regular review and revision. Protocols may also be required for case preparation and handling once offences are identified.

Establish or review Memorandums of Understanding between different agencies involved in inspection activities. It is common in most countries for a wide range of institutions to be involved in some way or another with enforcement of fisheries regulations. Such institutions may include: the Ministry or Department of fisheries; the police; customs authorities; the Navy/Air Force; and the office of the Attorney General. Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of these institutions with regards to fisheries control and enforcement can be greatly enhanced through agreed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the different institutions involved. Such MoUs can specify, for example, the levels of resources and activities required, lines of command, roles and responsibilities, and procedures for communication and information sharing.

Search Results - 10 projects found

Evaluation of Community Fishery Control Agency joint deployment plans Europe

A Global Record of fishing vessels Global

Technical Assistance & Capacity Building towards implementation of the EU Regulation (no. 1005/2008) on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing Sierra Leone

EC Fisheries Control Reform Impact Assessment European Union

Review of Sea Fisheries Control in Ireland Ireland

OECD High Seas Task Force Cost Benefit Analysis of Vessel Database OECD countries

Feasibility study of the Community Fisheries Control Agency EC

Mid-Term Evaluation of EC SADC MCS Program SADC (Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania)

Evaluation of the NAFO Fisheries Observer Programme EC & Worldwide

Examination of the costs and benefits of MCS in EU and selected third countries EC

Page 1 [1 ]