How can data collected through community surveillance be used?
This section of the toolkit will now discuss what can be done with evidence collected through community surveillance, so as to improve the chances of vessels suspected of IUU fishing being identified and ultimately sanctioned.
Many of the steps suggested will require significant human and technical resources. As such this section is aimed predominantly at organisations that are working with and supporting fishers and may be interested in developing a community surveillance scheme similar to that of the DASE app, or who are working with fishers using the DASE app.
Verification of data collected via community surveillance
Evidence generated through community surveillance should, where possible, be verified against multiple data sources before being shared with the relevant authorities for follow up and possible enforcement action. This helps to ensure that the data is genuinely depicting potentially illegal or otherwise harmful behaviour and thus maintain the legitimacy and credibility of data submitted via community surveillance.
Tools available for the verification of data received from fishers include the following:
Simple, free-to-use mapping tools such as Google Earth. These are particularly relevant for offences related to fishing in prohibited zones such as marine protected areas (MPAs) and IEZs. For example, if an industrial vessel is suspected to have been fishing illegally within an IEZ reserved for small-scale fishers, users can plot the vessel’s coordinates (if available, for example if they have been collected via the DASE app) in Google Earth and use the distance measuring function to gauge how far the vessel was from shore, providing a better indication of whether an infraction may have taken place. It is also possible to import boundaries into Google Earth and similar software, such as the boundaries of an MPA where certain types of fishing activity are prohibited, or the boundary of an IEZ. Google Earth is downloadable here, and a user guide can be found here.
Vessel tracking platforms. This includes those that are free (such as Global Fishing Watch) and those that are pay-to-access (such as the Spire Shipview platform and Starboard.nz). These platforms allow for the near real-time monitoring of fishing vessels and can be used to corroborate images and location data shared by fishers. Vessel tracking software can be used in conjunction with Google Earth. A vessel’s tracks can be downloaded from most platforms (e.g. as a .kml file), imported into Google Earth and mapped against the coordinates submitted by fishers. For example, if a photographed industrial vessel turns off its location tracker in close proximity to a protected area, this may serve as further evidence of risk behaviour.
Verification against lists of licences or authorisations published by the relevant flag or coastal state. These can assist in determining whether the fishing activity identified through community surveillance is authorised by the competent authorities. It can also be useful to help confirm a vessel’s identity where vessel markings in reported images are unclear, as well as the type of vessel and target species. Some government authorities publish data on vessels licensed to fish within their waters or authorised to fish under their flag, however this information is often not up to date, or is published on an ad hoc basis, if at all. Ghana, for example, has, in the past, published lists of tuna and trawl vessels, as well as semi-industrial vessels, licensed to fish within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In Senegal, after five years of collaborative efforts from national and international civil society organisations, including EJF, the authorities have published the list of industrial vessels authorised to fish in the country's waters. The most comprehensive vessel records are often available via regional fisheries management organisation (RFMOs) (see, for example, the IOTC and ICCAT list of authorised vessels), although these will only be relevant where fishing activities fall within the relevant RFMO’s mandate (e.g. fishing for tuna or tuna-like species). The FAO Global Record of Fishing Vessels, Refrigerated Transport Vessels and Supply Vessels can also be consulted to assist in verifications, including confirmation of vessel name, unique vessel identifiers, and flag state.
Compiling data and sharing with relevant authorities
If, having conducted the above verifications, it appears that the evidence submitted by fishers is indicative of potential illegal fishing, the next step is to compile it alongside any other relevant information before it is shared with the authorities. EJF shares this information in Vessel Activity Notifications (also referred to as ‘IUU Alerts’) and submits these bilaterally with the competent authorities for follow up and potential enforcement action (see the Additional Resources section for examples).
The following information, where available, should be included in such notifications:
Details of the vessel’s ownership - where possible identifying the companies associated with its operations, flag and other identifying information (e.g. name, call sign, MMSI, IMO number).
A detailed written description of the vessel’s behaviours including dates, locations and times, and why they are suspected to be illegal, with, where possible, reference to applicable laws that may have been breached.
Copies of the images captured through community surveillance (being cautious not to share any information that may reveal the fisher’s identity), as well as other relevant diagrams or images, such as screenshots of the vessel’s tracks in Global Fishing Watch or Google Earth and measurements showing distance from shore, as well as downloadable spreadsheets that show exact coordinates, dates, fishing speeds and any other relevant information.
Information on the vessel’s potential supply chain. Obtaining accurate information on the supply chains of fishing vessels is challenging as a result of the opaque nature of the industry. However, open-source intelligence is sometimes available online that can indicate where a vessel’s catch is potentially going. For example, DG SANTE (the department of the European Commission responsible for policy on food safety and health in the EU) publishes a list of non-EU establishments authorised to export to the EU which can include the names of fishing vessels. While a vessel’s presence on this list is not concrete evidence that there is an active supply chain, it can be an indicator of trade between a particular vessel and the EU. In some instances, larger retailers may publish details of the vessels that supply them, and/or larger fishing companies may publish details of who they supply. For example, EJF was able to obtain detailed information on the supply chain of the Zhejiang Ocean Family, one of China’s biggest tuna companies, based on information provided in a prospectus prepared for its Initial Public Offering (IPO). The use of vessel tracking software can also be a good indicator of where a vessel’s catch is going. Tools such as trans-shipment algorithms, that identify instances of fish being transferred at sea to collection vessels, can allow users to follow the collection vessel back to major seafood markets. However, again, users must be conscious of the inherent limitations of this method given it relies on satellite data as opposed to hard evidence of fish being traded globally.
Any other information that might assist the authorities in their investigation (e.g. previous illegal behaviours of the vessel or fleet, other risk behaviours of the vessel that were identified through vessel tracks).
Once the data, along with the above relevant information, has been compiled and verified, it is ready to share with the relevant authorities. Depending on the nature of the evidence submitted and potential infraction, the recipient(s) of evidence may include the competent authorities of: (i) the vessel’s flag state, (ii) the coastal state in whose waters the vessel was fishing, (iii) the port state(s) visited by the vessel, or any vessel that it is suspected of having trans-shipped with, and/or (iv) the market state which was the final destination of the seafood.
Evidence may also be submitted to regional or international organisations, such as the RFMOs with jurisdiction over the geographical area or species/fishery concerned, or the European Commission if there may have been a breach of EU legislation. Common examples include EU import controls aimed at preventing the entry of seafood stemming from IUU fishing into the EU market, or if information is relevant to bilateral dialogues between the Commission and third countries under the EU’s IUU Regulations.
It is worth identifying the appropriate divisions and individuals to whom the information will be of interest, either through web searches, or on the advice of local in-country partners where applicable. This may include, for example, officials at the ministry for fisheries, fisheries authority and/or maritime authority, and departments responsible for MCS.
When submitting data to any of the above recipients, organisations should be cautious about the language they are using when describing the vessel’s activities, and similarly about how and when they publish any details of alleged offences (for example in reports, news outlets, webpages) so as to avoid any legal repercussions. The use of cautious language, such as ‘reported to be’ and ‘displaying behaviours often linked to IUU fishing’ is advisable.
