Harmonised collection of small-scale domestic fisheries data Working Paper 3

1. Harmonised collection of small-scale domestic fisheries data Working Paper 3 Noumea, New Caledonia

2. This session: 13:20–14:20: Presentation of working paper and discussion in plenary 14:20–15:00: Group work 15:00–15:30: Tea break 15:30–15:45: Feedback from group work

3. Small-scale domestic fisheries • Fish and invertebrates captured in local waters for domestic use (commercial, subsistence, gifts, barter etc.)

4. Small-scale domestic fisheries • Wide range of species groups, multiple fishing methods • Critically important for food security and source of livelihoods in PICTs • Yet data poor

5. FAME data collection programs for small-scale fisheries • OFP: Regional Artisanal Line-Fishery Monitoring Program • CFP: Creel survey program • Some similarities: • Fisheries dependent; both conducted at defined landing sites • Both focused on fishers returning from fishing - catch, effort and CPUE - locations fished

6. In light of similarities, FAME is considering harmonising these two programs into a singular vehicle • This presentation: • Overview and recent advances in each program • Advances in electronic data collection • Discussion on advantages, and limitations/risks, of harmonising the two FAME programs • Discussion on importance of a standardised survey approach with minimum data standards, and how to establish this • Questions, discussion, group work, and feedback

7. OFP’s artisanal survey program • OFP’s work on PICTs capacity to deliver WCPFC data provisions • Artisanal - voluntary submission • Assessing industrial fishery impacts • FAD monitoring integrated • Strong country support • Implemented at landing sites with high pelagic landings (7 countries)

8. OFP’s artisanal survey program • Fishery-dependent data • Scaling factors for ACE. • Enumeration and vessel ID through vessel registration… • Trialing mini-AIS units with FFA (improved fishing area data), integrated distress signal.

9. OFP’s artisanal survey program Phase 1: workshops, manuals, ID, equipment Phase 2: data analysis, self-auditing, country-lead national workshops  Phase 3: looking at fisher lead data collection, cameras at landing sites, game-fishing and competition data

10. CFP’s creel survey program • Development commenced in 2011 following calls from PICTs to better assess status of coastal fisheries • Focused on collecting data for local management • Modular, flexible approach, where data are collected in slices • Designed for wide range of fishing activities (line, spear, net, gleaning) and target species (finfish and invertebrates)

11. CFP’s creel survey program • Trialed in 10 PICTs • Developed, trialed and implemented supporting database (move to web-based system planned for 2017) • Produced supporting manual and waterproof ID guide for 320 commonly observed finfish • Mobile device application version released last week

12. Advances in Electronic Data Collection

13. Tails • 2016: OFP staff began development of ‘Tails’ Android application for collection of small-scale tuna fisheries data • Works on both phone and tablet • Records catch and effort information from fishers • Upload straight from the device into the national database • Quicker access to data from remote islands

15. Easily switch the application to French language.

16. CFP • E-recording systems for creel surveys not trialed to date • Tails doesn’t currently support creel survey data • move to web-based system for data entry and storage planned for 2017 • further development (including funding and time) required for use of Tails (or Tails-like app) across all small-scale domestic fisheries

17. E-recording vs Paper • Benefits: • Inbuilt data quality checks • Eliminates handwriting legibility problems • Reduction in costs for printing and transporting forms • Drawbacks: • Slightly slower speed of entry at data collection • Device care and management required

18. Towards the harmonisation of SPC’s artisanal and creel survey programs

19. Artisanal survey forms Creel survey forms Set of common survey forms

20. Small-scale domestic fisheries DB Tufman2 Artisanal DB Creel survey DB

21. Management question(s) E.g. what is the annual catch of tuna? Management question(s) E.g. what proportion of fish in the night spearfishing catch are under size-at-maturity • Survey design • Selection of questions / data modules • Frequency, timing and location of sampling • Survey design • Selection of questions / data modules • Frequency, timing and location of sampling Data collection Data collection tool Data storage Information dissemination

22. Limitations / Risks Advantages Survey may be designed to ‘do too much’, requiring surveys to be repeated (different management objectives may require different sampling strategies) With careful design, surveys may be able to address multiple management questions Management question(s) Single form = increased number of redundant fields: may increase confusion around what fields to complete (e-recording may reduce this risk) • Survey design • Selection of questions / data modules • Frequency, timing and location of sampling Single form = less confusing for surveyors Increased short-term costs to modify existing sampling designs Increased short-term costs to modify existing data collection tools Reduced duplication of survey effort (where effort currently overlaps) Data collection ‘One team approach’ - less confusing for fishers / general public Increased short-term costs for staff training in new systems Data collection tool Increased short-term costs to modify existing data storage tools Reduced database development and maintenance costs Data storage Potential for standardised reporting Increased costs to produce support materials (e.g. manuals) Information dissemination

23. Advantages of harmonising programs • reduce duplication in data collection and thus avoid wasting resources (time and money) and avoiding survey fatigue; • provide consistency in how and what data are collected, reducing confusion among fisheries officers regarding which form to use and how to fill it in; • reduce confusion among fishers and the general public by adopting a ‘one team’ approach; • allow data fields to be categorised and prioritised depending on their intended use; and • facilitate the development and maintenance of a common database system, minimising long-term maintenance costs.

24. Limitations/risks of harmonising programs Management question(s) • risk that surveys may be perceived as a ‘one-size fits all’ or designed to do too much; • Care in developing and adhering to sampling design is critical

25. Limitations/risks of harmonising programs • will require broad suite of data fields on forms, some of which may be redundant for the survey at hand, leading to confusion and inconsistencies in what data are to be collected; • Need to maintain minimum data standards • Modular approaches, with appropriate training, may provide a solution • increased short-term costs (time, funding) associated with modifying existing data collection forms, data storage system and staff training; • increased costs (time, funding) associated with producing new support material such as manuals.

26. Other considerations… ? • structure of fishery agencies; • objectives of funding bodies; • PICT-specific ways fish are landed; • project-specific data needs;

27. The importance of maintaining regional standardisation

28. Regional standardisation important for… • providing consistency in how and what data are collected and analysed; • allowing data fields to be categorised and prioritised depending on their intended use; • facilitating the development and maintenance of a common database system, thereby minimising costs; • facilitating comparisons of fisheries and experiences among PICTs, allowing the development of regional reference limits; and • allowing PICTs to get their work recognised, and ensuring more long-term support for projects.

29. Tuna Fishery Data Collection Committee (DCC) • Established in 1995 (prior to development of WCPFC) • Formal process to achieve standardisation of tuna data forms, data processes and data quality, including minimum data standards • Primary membership is SPC and FFA, with invited participation from other parties (e.g. WCPFC, SPREP, TVM, PNA, NGOs, other RFMOs)

30. Beyond tuna… • Currently no formal process to achieve standardisation of data collection in other small-scale domestic fisheries • Can result in data collection that is project-specific and of little long-term use to management, or focused on individual’s area of interest or opinion • Under a harmonised approach, lack of DCC-like body may undo hard work of DCC for artisanal tuna fishery • We propose that if a harmonised approach is supported, a DCC-type forum that encompasses all small-scale domestic fisheries be convened to ensure a formal and participatory approach to developing minimum data standards

31. A small-scale domestic fisheries DCC SPC PICTs FFA Small-scale domestic fisheries DCC NGOs Other regional / international agencies WCPFC, TVM, PNA

32. Nevertheless… • FAME recognises need to be flexible to individual PICT requirements • Achieved in CFP creel survey program through modular approach • Could be built on top of minimum data standards • (But resource/funding/cost-recovery implications)

33. Proposed recommendations for broader discussion Heads of Fisheries are invited to recommend: • FAME move towards harmonisation of its artisanal and creel survey programs; • the use of SPC standardised survey approaches, data collection, and data management systems for in-country projects focusing on small-scale domestic fisheries; • FAME seek the necessary resources to further advance Tails or a Tails-like e-recording approach for use across all small-scale fisheries data collection; and • FAME convene a DCC-like vehicle that encompasses all small-scale domestic fisheries within 18 months.

34. Group work Divide into same 6 working groups as before: • Regional partners – the deck outside (Connie) • Regional donors – small conference room (Peter) • French speakers (NC, PF, WF, France) –foyer (Franck and Pauline) • Melanesia (including Timor-Leste) – back of conference room (Phil and Navneel) • Micronesia– foyer (Neville) • Polynesia – back room (Andrew)

35. Group work - questions • Do you recommend FAME to move towards harmonisation of its small-scale domestic fisheries data collection programs? If not, why not? • What are the enablers and challenges you anticipate in adopting a harmonised data collection system for small-scale domestic fisheries in your local setting? • If FAME were to convene a DDC-type vehicle for small-scale fisheries data standardisation how should this be structured, and who should be involved?