Almost 4 weeks since the last time I blogged, but I’ve been quite crazy times with deadlines left, right and centre. I’ve been dealing with 4 big jobs and a few small ones… as one was reported here, and a lot of people asked about it. I thought I put out there what I’ve been doing.
Which plasti bags are talking about?
FFA Plastic Waste generation on Fishing boats
As I mention a while ago, I was interested to put team for a FFA tender, we won it with my friends Robert Lee and Alice Leney. Even if it did not included fishing gear to identify, assess volumes produced and potentially dumped, and then come up with practical and policy based alternatives that are aligned to the regional framework (a WCPFC CMM) and the international one (MARPOL convention) while thinking laterally around how to do under limited enforcement opportunities… was a much bigger job we all anticipated
I’ll be reporting on it once cleared by FFA.
Critical Tracking Events (CTEs) and Key Data Elements (KDEs) along the wild capture and aquaculture value chains
This study seeks to provide technical advice to FAO member states in the development, enforcement and adequate verification of traceability in seafood value chains (both wild capture and aquaculture origins) through the identification Critical Tracking Events (CTEs) and Key Data Elements (KDEs) along the seafood value chain.
It discusses the role of traceability for official assurances, yet it also leans on the efforts and learning from private-led initiatives implementing traceability throughout seafood value chain, and where possible the identification of supporting standards based on the Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability (GDST) Standards and Guidelines.
The study analyses the interrelation of traceability along the value chain based on country-specific traceability mechanisms that are often essential for verifying and corroborating submitted data,
In the case of couture fisheries, based on the ‘state” types involved in fishing, landing, processing and trading of fisheries products along the supply chain (i.e. flag, coastal, port, processing and end-market States). And while in the case of aquaculture, the “state type” concept is not as clear, we aim to identify a producer state (for feed, hatcheries and farms), as well a processing state(s) and market state(s).
In both cases, it is important to recognise that a single nation can act as all of the state types, as is the case of many developing states that focus on capture/production and processing, while many developed economies are the market state for their products. Under this reality, there are specific regulatory requirements that apply to the different CTEs along the value chain and are validated by the collection and verification of KDEs, whose identification is central to the objective of this study.
As a critical initial step, there is the need to establish common global expectations and practices regarding two fundamental areas: 1) the nature of the information to be routinely associated with seafood products (i.e., the KDEs); and 2) the technical design specifications allowing diverse digital traceability systems to communicate with one another.
As the GDST are the newest standards available and in line with GS1, has substantial industry input and support and includes KDEs present in mayor market access requirements, the study uses many of the KDEs there identified and referenced in the in the analysis tables, and adds supplementary ones that relate to regulatory aspects. In regards the standards per se, the logic and language proposed by the GDST can be adapted to use for all of the KDEs identified.
By compiling and analysing the CTEs and KDEs from the regulatory realm while incorporating the applicable ones from the non-regulatory realm, this study hopes to facilitate the development of traceability systems that extend over the whole value chain.
The study also presents a potential opportunity offered by the Global Record of Stocks and Fisheries (GRSF) to align and support linkages to stock and fishery records and related status information as part of standardised traceability in capture fisheries.
The authors are very aware that no “one size fits all” solution is possible, and that the views, CTEs and KDEs here presented are guidance only, and may not be applicable in their entirety for some products, or even for the same product in different jurisdictions.
The overall recommendation of this study for FAO members is to: 1) identify and define standardized KDEs and CTEs for commercial and regulatory traceability, and 2) to follow strict due diligence (using a holistic and integrated approach) involving all stakeholders at legal, commercial and operational level prior to commitment.
The study is up for comments here
Identification and uptake analysis of new and innovative technologies by Deep Sea Fisheries
Based on a blog entry I wrote on the “back end” of EM. FAO asked me to do a small study to support deep-sea Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (dsRFMOs), the private sector and other partners towards more sustainable Deep Sea Fishing in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ)
This job was challenging because it took me away from tuna and back to trawler days…
DSF in the ABNJ occur at depths of 200 – 2000 m and are typically an extension of DSF within national waters, but with some important differences. They are undertaken far from home ports and often land their catch in countries other than their home port where markets exist. Fishing at great depths in the ABNJ requires large vessels and long times at sea, and a product that must have sufficient value to offset the costs of steaming to distant waters and the time taken to set the towed nets and lines at depth. In general, and especially compared to small pelagic species, catches are relatively low in line with the species reduced productivity and the precautionary approach now adopted after heavy initial exploitation in the 1970s-2000s. DSF therefore cater to specialist markets that can afford high prices for quality products.
This baseline study aims to provide information on the identification and uptake of new and innovative technologies by dsRFMOs for improved monitoring, reporting and information sharing piloted and introduced. These can be hardware or software related and aimed at supporting compliance monitoring or scientific data collection. This baseline study is to review the current technologies used on board commercial fishing vessels to provide information to dsRFMO compliance and scientific committees. Technologies to improve efficiency and reliability will also be considered.
The project will not itself develop new technologies, but its role will be to identify and advertise newly developed technologies and, as appropriate, arrange for testing and uptake by project partners.
The study was undertaken by a combination of desktop studies and remote interviews to document technologies currently used by dsRFMOs from both the industry and regulatory interphase, and to develop a network of practitioners in both realms that will be able to assist in the identification and uptake of new technologies once the DSF project is underway.
Registration and Management of eFADS
As the region moves into better eFAD management, with the new PNA reporting requirements that include five major changes to current FAD-related reporting requirements for vessel operators:
Adding a trip buoy inventory
Adding Buoy ID to FAD set data
Increasing the detail on FAD activities
Adding information on FAD design and construction
Linking the FAD Buoys to the PNA FAD Buoy Register
By doing this, we get to deal better with eFAD issues like Effort Creep, but on the other side there would be incentives for FV to do not add eFADs to the declared inventory of boys IS that can be linked to FAD Buoy Register, particularly considering all the horse-trading that goes on around who owns the eFADs and who fishes it, and if that FAD is registered and emitting.
So basically I been asked to put my ex fisherman hat and find potential ways to go around the potential forthcoming rules, and then put my compliance hat and propose direct control measures and indirect surveillance methods to assess compliance.
Is a total can of worms… I’ll write an eFAD blog one of these days!
——-
Furthermore, I had in consecutive weeks been presented and facilitator at the 3 days each PSM and CDS workshops for FFA membership…
plus the slow death of 1000 Zoom meeting a week…
I miss the operational work!