Electronic monitoring (EM) is a rapidly evolving technology in the seafood industry that collects data such as fish catch totals, fishing effort, and bycatch in order to ensure sustainability aboard vessels. Certain governments and regional fishery management organizations are making the technology a requirement to fishing in their jurisdictions, but it is facing regulatory hurdles elsewhere.
EM firms like Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A.-based FlyWire aim to reduce the barriers to entry for seafood producers looking to implement EM. The company offers producers training in how to use the technology, a data platform where they can monitor their operations 24/7, and technical support to fix any issues that may arise on the water.
FlyWire CEO Jacob Isaac-Lowry discussed the opportunities and challenges EM is facing in the industry with SeafoodSource.
SeafoodSource: EM is often discussed in the context of supporting sustainability efforts, but there are also benefits related to better control in a supply chain and potential cost savings. Can you lay out the pragmatic value proposition for seafood supply chains adopting EM technology?
Isaac-Lowry: This is an important question that many forward-thinking folks in the industry are asking themselves. The brand value of leading seafood producers is increasingly enhanced by claims of sustainable supply chains; therefore, confidence in supply chains has become a competitive advantage. This is where commercial EM solutions shine. People may be more familiar with the early vision of EM as compliance-only cameras on vessels; however, this technology is capable of much more, as demonstrated by those who have experience with it.
Incorporating commercial EM fosters collaboration with national and regional fisheries observer programs to augment, supplement, or transition human observer coverage. Specifically, FlyWire partners with seafood producers who require particular observer coverage targets within their supply chains – whether that be for MSC certifications, fishery improvement projects, or bycatch reduction commitments – to achieve timely results while delivering cost savings of up to 50 percent for vessels.
Practical limitations of human observation combined with the expense of fishery-independent surveys often imposes uncertainty on fishery stock assessments, which have been found to unnecessarily trigger quota curtailments. Commercial EM services precisely and accurately capture fishermen’s lived experiences on the water and automates production of specific data required to reduce uncertainty in fishery stock assessments and maximize quota. For this reason, EM is a lucrative investment for producers seeking faster, more reliable assessments.
Fishermen and seafood businesses that choose EM to expand their production monitoring systems gain new tools to command the best price, limit liability, and ensure harvesting operations consistently meet expectations.
When done responsibly, a transition to commercial EM enables seafood producers to be a proactive actor in an often reactive industry.
SeafoodSource: Many EM challenges involve getting the technology itself right, but is getting policy right just as, or even more, important?
Isaac-Lowry: Currently, getting the policy right is the bigger challenge. Given the conversation around EM has shifted from whether EM actually works to scaling it effectively, it is important to understand what the current policy toward EM is, how it inhibits adoption of EM, what has changed to warrant a reset of policy now, and what a proper new policy would look like.
It is no secret that seafood supply chains have not adopted EM anywhere close to the pace projected by traditional subject matter experts. This is a result of policy constraints.
Currently, seafood producers must secure special permits from regulators to use EM data to meet observer coverage requirements and contribute to fisheries assessments. These permits often take many years of hard work to receive and are not widely available. Tightly restricting who can use EM has strangled industry’s ability to proactively adopt EM technologies that make good business sense. Even worse, attempts to force EM technologies with poor product-market fit onto vessels after the fact have sullied the reputation of EM in the eyes of many who would benefit from its use.
The current policy was adopted decades ago, and at the time, tightly restricting who could use EM made good sense. The technology was new, unproven, and was not yet a reliable alternative to human observers. That has changed. EM is now a widely accepted alternative to human observation and has repeatedly been proven fit-for-purpose. The technology is ready. To unlock scale, a proper new policy would see regulators aggressively relax restrictions on who can use EM and how long they must wait before getting started.
SeafoodSource: What do you see as the policy steps that NOAA could take to increase the adoption of electronic monitoring in U.S. fisheries?
Isaac-Lowry: A timely update of NOAA Fisheries’ interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), which has been silent on technology like EM as an acceptable method to collect fishery-dependent data, is needed. Such an update would likely accelerate the adoption of EM at this time.
In the U.S. under NOAA’s current interpretation, producers are required to have an exempted fishing permit (EFP) to use EM. Because NOAA normally takes three to five years to process an EM EFP application and then either issue or deny the permit, EM permits are not equally available to all producers. While seemingly unintentional, the creation of EM permit scarcity by NOAA is a material market intervention that has predictably fouled the transition from discreet EM projects to widespread market adoption. It is simple to understand why the majority of vessels, originally excluded from the EFP process, do not want to use an EM program designed to benefit their competitors.
Credit is due to leadership at NOAA and the Department of Commerce who have recently taken necessary, strong action on EM – most notably in implementing the technology directives contained in the Trump administration’s executive order (EO) earlier this year. As part of the ongoing work to fulfill the stated goals of the EO, we continue to encourage NOAA to revisit its interpretation of MSA’s silence and to waive the EFP requirement for proven, human-observer equivalent EM.
SeafoodSource: Are these policy barriers creating a situation where non-U.S. supply chains can better control their supply chains by comparison? What can companies do to support policy improvements in this area?
Isaac-Lowry: Unfortunately, this is true. Because non-U.S. supply chains are not subject to a three- to five-year implementation delay waiting on NOAA Fisheries’ EFP process, they can move faster and implement better supply chain controls than what is currently possible for U.S. producers.
To my knowledge, the best thing for any company seeking to support policy improvements in this area is to go ahead and get started on your own EM transition.
Information is power, and for seafood producers constantly tasked with proving that individual allegations are not systemic across a supply chain, a commercial EM service saves you from chasing your tail so you can focus on building your business.
