Table B1. Key MCS Components
KEY MCS COMPONENT |
OPERATION |
INSPECTIONS, ACTIVITY/DAY |
EFFECTIVENESS OF MCS TO CHECK |
TIME OBSERVED |
EFFECTIVENESS OF DETECTION OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY |
COVERAGE |
POWERS OF ARREST |
|||
position |
fishing gear |
catch limits /bycatch |
days at sea |
|||||||
By vessel |
Sighting and inspection |
2-3 per day/officera |
High |
High |
Med. |
Med. |
Low |
High |
Visual 300 nm /hour radar 600 nm |
Yes |
By air |
Sighting and photographyb |
200-300 per flight |
High |
Low |
None |
Lowc |
Low |
High |
3500-4800 nm/hr |
Nod |
Shore based controls |
Coast patrols, market checks, port inspections |
3-5 per day |
None |
High |
High |
High |
Med. |
Mede |
0-20 nm/hr |
Yes |
Observers at sea |
Continual observationf |
One vessel per day |
Med./ High |
High |
High |
High |
High |
High on assigned vessel |
High for assigned vessel |
No |
Dockside monitors |
Landing checks |
3-5 per dayg |
None |
Low |
High |
Med. |
Med. |
Med. |
None |
No |
VMS |
Periodic monitoring of licensed vessel positions and activitiesh |
All vessels logged on at preset intervals |
High |
None |
None |
High |
High |
High for area violations |
Complete for fitted vessels |
No - as per air surv. |
Satellite imagery |
Periodic monitoring of all contacts in a set area |
All contacts at time of scan |
High |
None |
None |
Low |
Med.i |
High for unlicensed if linked to vms |
Complete for scan |
No - as per air surv. |
Radar |
Monitoring of contacts in a set area |
All contacts in range |
High |
None |
None |
Low |
High in range |
High for area violations |
High for range |
No |
Real time video |
Full time monitoring capability of a set area |
If taped, all contacts in range |
Med. |
Low |
None |
Low |
High in range |
High if in range |
High for range |
No |
Coast/reef watch |
Sightings at sea |
Contacts in 3nm of patrol line |
Med. |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Med. |
High if in range |
18 nm/hr |
No |
a This depends on the fishery, bycatch and method of capture, e.g. purse seine inspections can be more rapid than trawlers.
b Effectiveness increased if night time infrared tracking and night photography is available.
c Dependent upon the frequency of air patrols to the same area and distance from shore - if offshore and sighted every two days, assume still at sea.
d Secondary information or possibly from helicopters.
e Depends on thoroughness and time involved in port inspection.
f Effectiveness dependent upon technical capability of observers, for GPS, catch estimates, processing conversion factors, storage estimations, and time observer works.
g Dependent upon the method of offloading, individual boxes and scales or by pumping and weigh outs in holding tanks.
h The capability for electronic catch reporting could enhance the capability of this component.
i Depends on frequency of scans.
Table B2. Advantages and disadvantages of MCS components
Key MCS Component |
ADVANTAGES |
DISADVANTAGES |
By Vessel |
Provides at-sea verification of fishing gear, discards, dumping, catches and regular logbook completion. Control of offshore and foreign fishing and areas violations. Can arrest at sea. |
Expensive even where focussed and directed to problem areas. |
By Air |
Best for large area coverage and directing sea assets to problem areas. Very good for area violations. Excellent if night patrol capable, e.g. night photography, infrared tracking, etc. |
Expensive, cannot check catches, gear, etc. |
Shore-based controls |
Stable and low cost with potential for complete inspection. Can arrest for violation. |
Cannot monitor dumping, culling, discards or gear violations. Cannot monitor fishing or processing operations for catch estimates and processing conversion rates. Can only monitor port transshipment. |
Observers at sea |
Can monitor all at-sea operations and verify catches, discards, dumping, gear, processing and reporting. |
Medium cost, but can be transferred to the industry. Only for larger vessels. Integrity checks need cross verification. |
Dockside monitors |
Excellent for landing checks. Medium cost, but stable platform and safe verification of landed value and species. |
No at sea verification of full catches and dumping, etc. |
VMS |
Near real time full monitoring of fitted/licensed vessels. Can focus more expensive assets to target areas and reduce costs. Low cost with only communications costs and depreciation after initial capital acquisition of base (ship fitted equipment should be at cost to fishing vessel unless for small boat fleet) |
No coverage of unfitted vessels, hence no coverage of unlicensed vessels, or small boat fleet not required to be fitted. Needs integration with other sensor for full coverage of activity in the area. |
Satellite Imagery |
Full coverage of area scanned. |
Still relatively expensive for regular scans. No identification of targets unless linked with other sensor (VMS). Little information on course and speed of contact. |
Radar |
Full coverage of closer contacts. Good area coverage for set area. Prior risk assessment and pre-positioning of MCS intercepting assets. Relatively low cost for wide area coverage. Good for incursion monitoring. |
No identification of vessels. Limited range. No arrest capability, only supporting information. |
Real time video |
Full coverage and identification within set area. No Force approach with maximum safety to monitor. Relatively low cost for small areas. |
No hands on ability for arrest, information only. Small are of coverage. Open to elements and outside influence/destruction. |
Coast/reef watch |
Relatively low cost. Community participation and involvement. Witness for events and follow-up action. Good prior notification for patrol planning and focused MCS activities to problem areas. Intelligence gathering. Potential CB CRM educators for community liaison and preventive approach for MCS. Low cost. |
Need legal protection against harassment, adverse and negative reaction of public and fishers. Needs selling to community that watchers are on side of the community conservation. |
B1. MCS EQUIPMENT COSTS[124]
B1.1 Air Surveillancer
This is an expensive undertaking and dependent upon geographical area of coverage, but it can be cost-effective for large areas. Many countries rely on their Air Force for this service and pay an hourly rate, which can be as low as US$400/hour or as high as US$3000/air hour depending on the aircraft, patrol time and equipment.
The countries of the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency rely on the Air Forces of Australia and New Zealand for these services in their area. The countries of West Africa share air surveillance costs of an aircraft based in Gambia.
Aircraft costs vary with size, propulsion and equipment from a Defender type aircraft equipped for air surveillance at US$4 million, to a fully equipped night surveillance capable aircraft such as the Beechcraft King Air turbo prop at US$6.2 million as used in Canada and by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
A few countries have their own fisheries surveillance aircraft, but these are expensive to procure, operate, and maintain. The lease option is recommended. It can vary considerably from a small Cessna at US$350-$400/air hour to the Canadian leased service at a cost of approximately US$1400/air hour for a Beechcraft King Air turbo prop aircraft with three navigating systems, HF and VHF radio, integrated computer technology to link the air navigation systems with the day/night photography system, the Litton V5 Side Looking, Single Aperture Radar (SLAR) radar and forward-looking infrared tracking.
B1.2 Radar
In coastal areas where air surveillance is difficult and expensive some countries have opted for small low cost-radar systems, e.g. Senegal's linked coastal radar system; the Indonesia trial system for two marine parks in Take Bone Rate, South Sulawesi and Padaido, Irian Jaya. These are small short range radar systems 24-48 miles at a cost of approximately US$ 9,000 - 10,000/unit including solar panels and tower for the antenna. These are low technology units that can be used by operators after approximately one day of training.
B1.3 Patrol Vessels
Vessels come in various sizes, including very large naval units (for which operational costs are unavailable) for offshore and high seas patrols. Nearshore and coastal patrols more commonly would use commercially available steel or fibreglass vessels. The following table shows costs of vessels used in the Indonesian MCS system.
Table B3. Vessel costs per unit
VESSEL TYPE |
PROCUREMENT/ UNIT |
COST/DAY |
COST/MONTH |
||
ltr/hr & hr/day |
Cost |
Days/Mo |
Cost |
||
27 m Steel Hull (twin 500 hp engines) |
US$ 3 million |
10 hr × 300 ltr @ US$ 0.20/ltr |
US$ 609/day |
12 |
US$7 308 |
17 m Steel (aluminum) (twin 500 hp engines) |
US $ 1.1 million (US$1.25 million) |
10 hr × 600 ltr @ US $0.20/ltr |
US$ 1218/day |
12 |
US$1 416 |
22 m Fibreglass (twin 680 hp engines) |
US$ 560 000 |
12 hr × 240L × $0.20 |
US$ 576/day |
12 |
US$6 912 |
7-9 m Fibreglass (twin 150 hp gasoline engines) |
US$ 68 000 |
5 hr × 36 l @ $0.25 |
US$45/day |
20 |
US$900 |
Local boats 40 hp diesel |
US$4 350 |
8 hr × 40 l average @ $0.20 |
US$ 64/day |
20 |
US$1 280 |
Notes:
|
B1.4 Safety Equipment
This is a package that can also vary. Using the Indonesian model for COREMAP, it could include the following items:
SSB/HF radios @ US$2 900/unit
VHF Base radios @ US$ 1 430/unit
VHF Hand held radios @ US$700/unit
GPS hand held @ US$ 500/unit
Binoculars @ US$ 220/unit
Binoculars - night vision @ US$ 1 700/unit
Loud Hailers @ US$ 100
Signal flares and ID Jackets @ US$ 500/unit
Heavy Duty Flashlights/Flood lights for the boats @ US$400/unit
Digital cameras @ US$ 800/unit
Video Cameras @ US$ 1 400/unit
Solar panels for radio at remote locations @ US$ 1 000/unit
Diesel generators for remote locations @ US$2 000/unit
B1.5 Office Equipment
Major items include computers (ca. US$ 3 000/unit with peripherals) and photocopiers (up to US$5 000 each for high-end units).
B1.6 Enforcement Staff and Observers/Dockside Monitors
Costs depend on local wages, but it is suggested that to ensure integrity of staff that these should be at a reasonable level. The observers and dockside monitors are usually not granted enforcement powers. Training costs to develop the professionalism for MCS are additional and very dependent upon the tasks expected of the staff, e.g. IT staff training/person would be more expensive than dockside monitoring courses.
B1.7 New Technology
VMS is being utilized with greater frequency as a tool for MCS in many countries and RFMOs. Examples include: Argentina; Australia; Canada; European Union (EU); Iceland; Japan; Malaysia; Maldives; New Zealand; Norway; Peru; South Africa; the United States of America; and several regional organizations (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency, International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, and the Central Bering Sea). Some VMSs are being used in conjunction with other tools such as radar, forward looking infrared systems and satellite imagery.
VMSs are becoming more sophisticated, and costs will vary over a wide range. Base stations can be established from around US$ 50 000 upwards, and onboard units run from US$ 3 000 to 5 000/unit. VMS is only a tool and must be used in conjunction with one of the other systems noted above to provide coverage of all vessels in an area. The combination of two systems will assist in rapid identification of non-VMS vessels, which would automatically become targets for further investigation.
Satellite imagery and use of integrated GIS costs for MCS are not available at this time as they are subject to the satellite systems used, frequency of access and communications costs for integration with national systems. It is suggested that as each system is developed the parameters for the operational demands be carefully identified so that the most appropriate mix of technologies can be selected.
There are several legal issues emerging with the use of new technology, and it is recommended that the CCRF guidelines, and other FAO legal publications be consulted prior to procurement to ensure that a State can maximize the benefits from such equipment.[125]
[124] For a fuller
treatment of this topic, see Kelleher (2000) [125] E.g.: Molenar and Tsameny (2000); Cacaud (1999). |