Advertisement

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 887–907 | Cite as

The use of electronic monitoring within tuna longline fisheries: implications for international data collection, analysis and reporting

  • Timothy J. Emery
  • Rocio Noriega
  • Ashley J. Williams
  • James Larcombe
  • Simon Nicol
  • Peter Williams
  • Neville Smith
  • Graham Pilling
  • Malo Hosken
  • Stephen Brouwer
  • Laura Tremblay-Boyer
  • Thomas Peatman
Research Paper

Abstract

Electronic monitoring (EM) consisting of on-board video imagery and on-shore analysis, offers an alternative or supplement to at-sea observer programs in commercial fisheries. In the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), where observer coverage in most tuna longline fisheries has historically been < 5%, the advent of EM has been perceived as a tool for meeting international data collection and exchange obligations. However, the capability of EM to collect and support interpretation of records into data for all fields currently collected by at-sea observers is still under assessment. We use the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) as a case-study to evaluate the longline WCPFC regional observer programme minimum standard data fields, their current scientific application, the proportion of member countries exchanging data and the capability of EM technology to collect these fields. We identify that 78% of the longline fields can be collected with current EM technology, with 84% of these used in scientific analyses. For the 16% of fields not routinely used in scientific analyses, the introduction of EM may facilitate a sufficient increase in data availability to support their future use. Alternative tools would be required to collect fields that EM could not record to ensure data continuity and scientific rigour are not compromised. In examining the capability of EM in the context of WCPFC member state requirements under international law, we advocate for a holistic and integrated approach to the use of EM in future research and monitoring programs in both the WCPO and global longline fisheries.

Keywords

At-sea observers Cameras Data Fisheries management Tuna WCPFC 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank participants involved in the SPC Regional E-Monitoring Process Standards Workshops held in 2016 and 2017 who assessed the capability of electronic monitoring to collect data fields from the WCPFC ROP Minimum Standard, which we have reproduced for the 49 longline data fields in Table 1. In particular, we acknowledge the work of the EM service providers (Archipelago Asia Pacific, Digital Observer Services, Marine Instruments, Saltwater Inc. and SatLink) and Ian Knuckey from Fishwell Consulting Pty Ltd in his role as facilitator at the workshops. We also acknowledge Lee Georgeson from ABARES, Kerry Smith from AFMA, along with two anonymous reviewers and the editor who provided constructive comments on re-structuring the manuscript to improve readability and relevance. Finally, we thank Andrew Fedoruk and Matthew Piasente from Archipelago Asia Pacific for providing an insight into the capability of electronic monitoring technologies and how camera footage from Australian Commonwealth fisheries is reviewed.

References

  1. AFMA (2015) Australian Fisheries Management Authority electronic monitoring program: program overview. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  2. AFMA (2017) Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Shark Resource Assessment Group (SharkRAG): Meeting Minutes 1-2017. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  3. Aires-da-Silva A, Lennert-Cody C, Maunder MN, Roman-Verdesoto M (2014) Stock status indicators for silky sharks in the eastern Pacific Ocean, vol SAC-05-11a. In: Inter-American Tropical tuna Commission Scientific Advisory Committee fifth meeting, La Jolla, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. Ames RT (2005) The efficacy of electronic monitoring systems: a case study on the applicability of video technology for longline fisheries management. Scientific report no. 80. International Pacific Halibut Commission, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  5. Ames RT, Williams GH, Fitzgerald SM (2005) Using digital video monitoring systems in fisheries: application for monitoring compliance of seabird avoidance devices and seabird mortality in Pacific halibut longline fisheries. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  6. Ames RT, Leaman BM, Ames KL (2007) Evaluation of video technology for monitoring of multispecies longline catches. North Am J Fish Manag 27:955–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Babcock EA, Pikitch EK (2003) How much observer coverage is enough to adequately estimate bycatch?. Pew Institute for Ocean Science, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  8. Banks R, Muldoon G, Fernandes V (2016) Analysis of the costs and benefits of electronic fisheries information systems applied in FFA countries and identification of the legislative, regulatory and policy supporting requirements. World Wildlife FundGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartholomew DC, Mangel JC, Alfaro-Shigueto J, Pingo S, Jimenez A, Godley BJ (2018) Remote electronic monitoring as a potential alternative to on-board observers in small-scale fisheries. Biol Conserv 219:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benoît HP, Allard J (2009) Can the data from at-sea observer surveys be used to make general inferences about catch composition and discards? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66:2025–2039.  https://doi.org/10.1139/F09-116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bromhead D, Clarke S, Hoyle S, Muller B, Sharples P, Harley S (2012) Identification of factors influencing shark catch and mortality in the Marshall Islands tuna longline fishery and management implications. J Fish Biol 80:1870–1894.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03238.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Bromhead D, Rice J, Harley S (2013) Analyses of the potential influence of four gear factors (leader type, hook type, “shark lines” and bait type) on shark catch rates in WCPO tuna longline fisheries vol WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-02 rev 1. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee, Ninth Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of MicronesiaGoogle Scholar
  13. Brouwer S (2017) Evaluation of the consequences of size based limits and catch retention. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat for the Pacific Community, NouméaGoogle Scholar
  14. CCSBT (2017) Report of the Twenty Fourth Annual Meeting of the Commission: 12 October 2017. Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, YogyakartaGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke S, Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project (2017) Joint analysis of Sea Turtle mitigation effectiveness. WCPFC Scientific Committee 13th Regular Session, Rarotonga, Cook IslandsGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarke SC, Harley SJ, Hoyle SD, Rice JS (2013) Population trends in Pacific Oceanic sharks and the utility of regulations on shark finning. Conserv Biol 27:197–209.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01943.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cotter AJR, Pilling GM (2007) Landings, logbooks and observer surveys: improving the protocols for sampling commercial fisheries. Fish Fish 8:123–152.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2679.2007.00241.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cox TM, Lewison RL, ŽYdelis R, Crowder LB, Safina C, Read AJ (2007) Comparing effectiveness of experimental and implemented bycatch reduction measures: the ideal and the real. Conserv Biol 21:1155–1164.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00772.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Davies N, Pilling G, Harley S, Hampton J (2013) Stock assessment of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the southwest Pacific Ocean. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, NouméaGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunn S, Knuckey I (2013) Potential for e-reporting and e-monitoring in the western and central Pacific tuna fisheries. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)Google Scholar
  21. Emery TJ, Noriega R, Williams A, Larcombe J (2018a) Measuring congruence between electronic monitoring and logbook data in three Australian Commonwealth longline and gillnet fisheriesGoogle Scholar
  22. Emery TJ, Noriega R, Williams A, Larcombe J (2018b) Changes in logbook reporting by commercial fishers following the implementation of electronic monitoring in Australian Commonwealth fisheries  Google Scholar
  23. Evans R, Molony B (2011) Pilot evaluation of the efficacy of electronic monitoring on a demersal gillnet vessel as an alternative to human observers. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, North BeachGoogle Scholar
  24. FAO (1997) FAO technical guidelines for responsible fisheries 4: fisheries management. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. Faunce CH, Barbeaux SJ (2011) The frequency and quantity of Alaskan groundfish catcher-vessel landings made with and without an observer. ICES J Mar Sci 68:1757–1763.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsr090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilman EL (2011) Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries. Mar Policy 35:590–609.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilman E, Kobayashi D, Swenarton T, Dalzell P, Kinan I, Brothers N (2006) Analyses of observer data for the Hawaii-based longline swordfish fishery, vol WCPFC-SC2-2006/EB IP-1. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Scientific Committee, Second Regular Session, Manila, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilman E, Kobayashi D, Chaloupka M (2008) Reducing seabird bycatch in the Hawaii longline tuna fishery. Endanger Species Res 5:309–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gilman E, Passfield K, Nakamura K (2014) Performance of regional fisheries management organizations: ecosystem-based governance of bycatch and discards. Fish Fish 15:327–351.  https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gilman E, Chaloupka M, Peschon J, Ellgen S (2016) Risk factors for seabird bycatch in a pelagic longline tuna fishery. PLoS ONE 11:e0155477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gilman E, Weijerman M, Suuronen P (2017) Ecological data from observer programmes underpin ecosystem-based fisheries management. ICES J Mar Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hare SR, Harley SJ, Hampton WJ (2015) Verifying FAD-association in purse seine catches on the basis of catch sampling. Fish Res 172:361–372.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harley S, Pilling G (2016) Potential implications of the choice of longline mitigation approach allowed within CMM 2014–05. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat for Pacific Community, NouméaGoogle Scholar
  34. Harley SJ, Myers RA, Dunn A (2001) Is catch-per-unit-effort proportional to abundance? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:1760–1772.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f01-112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harley S, Caneco B, Donovan C, Tremblay-Boyer L, Brouwer S (2015) Monte carlo simulation modelling of possible measures to reduce impacts of longlining on oceanic whitetip and silky sharks. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community and DMP Statistical Solutions UK LimitedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hosken M et al (2016a) Report on the 2014 Solomon Islands longline e-monitoring project. Pacific Community, NouméaGoogle Scholar
  37. Hosken M, Williams P, Smith N (2016b) Update on the implementation of electronic monitoring (EM) and electronic reporting (ER) technologies in the WCPO. Nouméa, New CaledoniaGoogle Scholar
  38. Hosken M, Williams P, Smith N (2017) Update on ER and EM progress in the region. Oceanic Fisheries Program, Pacific Community, RarotongaGoogle Scholar
  39. ICCAT (2017) Report of the standing committee on research and statistics (SCRS)—Madrid, Spain 2 to 6 October 2017. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, MadridGoogle Scholar
  40. IOTC (2017) Report of the 20th session of the IOTC Scientific Committee, Seychelles, 30 November–4 December 2017, vol IOTC–2017–SC20–R[E]. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), SeychellesGoogle Scholar
  41. Kirby D (2006) Ecological risk assessment for species caught in WCPO tuna fisheries: inherent risk as determined by productivity-susceptibility analysis, vol WCPFC-SC2-2006/EB WP-1. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee, Second Regular Session, Manila, PhillipinesGoogle Scholar
  42. Langley A, Okamoto H, Williams P, Miyabe N, Bigelow K (2006) A summary of the data available for the estimation of conversion factors (processed to whole fish weights) for yellowfin and bigeye tuna. Nouméa, New CaledoniaGoogle Scholar
  43. Larcombe J, Noriega R, Timmiss T (2016) Catch reporting under e-monitoring in the Australian Pacific longline fishery. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  44. Lawson T (2008) Factors affecting the use of species composition data collected by observers and port samplers from purse seiners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, vol SC4–ST–WP3. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee, Fourth Regular Session, Port Moresby, Papua New GuineaGoogle Scholar
  45. Lawson T (2011) Estimation of catch rates and catches of key shark species in tuna fisheries of the western and central Pacific Ocean using observer data. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, NouméaGoogle Scholar
  46. Leroy B et al (2013) A critique of the ecosystem impacts of drifting and anchored FADs use by purse-seine tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Aquat Living Resour 26:49–61.  https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2012033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mangi SC, Dolder PJ, Catchpole TL, Rodmell D, de Rozarieux N (2015) Approaches to fully documented fisheries: practical issues and stakeholder perceptions. Fish Fish 16:426–452.  https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maunder MN, Punt AE (2004) Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches. Fish Res 70:141–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2004.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McElderry H (2008) At sea observing using video-based electronic monitoring. Background paper prepared by Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. for the Electronic Monitoring Workshop July 29–30, 2008. Seattle WA, held by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the North Pacific Research Board: The efficacy of video-based monitoring for the halibut fisheryGoogle Scholar
  50. McElderry H, Pria M, Dyas M, McVeigh R (2010) A pilot study using EM in the Hawaiian longline fishery. Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  51. McKechnie A, Hampton J, Pilling GM, Davies N (2016) Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean, vol WCPFC-SC12-2016/SA-WP-04. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, The Pacific CommunityGoogle Scholar
  52. Molony B (2005) Estimates of the mortality of non-target species with an initial focus on seabirds, turtles and sharks. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, NouméaGoogle Scholar
  53. Morato T, Hoyle SD, Allain V, Nicol SJ (2010) Seamounts are hotspots of pelagic biodiversity in the open ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:9707–9711.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910290107 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. MRAG (2016) Towards the quantification of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the Pacific Islands region. MRAG Asia Pacific, ToowongGoogle Scholar
  55. Nicol S et al (2009) Characterisation of the tuna purse seine fishery in Papua New Guinea, vol ACIAR. Technical reports 70. Australian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchGoogle Scholar
  56. Nicol S et al (2013) An ocean observation system for monitoring the affects of climate change on the ecology and sustainability of pelagic fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. Clim Change 119:131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. NPFMC (2016) 2017 Electronic monitoring pre-implementation plan: EM workgroup recommendation to council, September 2016. North Pacific Fishery Management Council https://static1.squarespace.com/static/563cfe4fe4b0b371c8422a54/t/5834f48d9de4bbe7ab9b36a2/1479865493471/C3+2017+EM+Pre-Implementation+Plan+9-13-16+%282%29.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2018
  58. OFP (2010) Non-target species interactions with the tuna fisheries of the western and central Pacific Ocean, vol WCPFC-SC6-2010/EB-IP-8. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee, Sixth Regular Session, Nuku’alofa, TongaGoogle Scholar
  59. Peatman T et al (2018) Scientific Committee Fourteenth Regular Session: summary of longline fishery bycatch at a regional scale, 2003–2017, vol WCPFC-SC14-2018/ST-WP-03. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, FAME, Pacific Community (SPC)Google Scholar
  60. Piasente M, Stanley B, Timmiss T, McElderry H, Pria M, Dyas M (2012) Electronic onboard monitoring pilot project for the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  61. Rice J, Harley S (2014) Standardization of blue shark catch per unit effort in the North Pacific Ocean based on deepset longline observer data for use as an index of abundance, vol WCPFC-SC10-2014/SA-IP-14. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee, Tenth Regular Session, Majuro, Marshall IslandsGoogle Scholar
  62. Rice J, Tremblay-Boyer L, Scott R, Hare S, Tidd A (2015) Analysis of stock status and related indicators for key shark species of the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Joel Rice Consulting Ltd & Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, NouméaGoogle Scholar
  63. Roberts CD, Stewart AL, Struthers CD (2015) The fishes of New Zealand. Te Papa Press, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  64. Ruiz J et al (2015) Electronic monitoring trials on in the tropical tuna purse-seine fishery. ICES J Mar Sci 72:1201–1213.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Salas S, Chuenpagdee R, Seijo JC, Charles A (2007) Challenges in the assessment and management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fish Res 87:5–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2007.06.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. SIOFA (2018) Report of the third meeting of the Scientific Committee of the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement: 20–24 March 2018. Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement, La ReunionGoogle Scholar
  67. SPC (2016a) Electronic monitoring longline process standards workshop summary. SPC, NouméaGoogle Scholar
  68. SPC (2016b) Report of the first strategy meeting of the tuna fishery data collection committee—4–6 April 2016. Pacific Community and Forum Fisheries Agency, NouméaGoogle Scholar
  69. SPC (2017) Report on the second regional electronic monitoring process standards workshop 20 to 24 November 2017. SPC, NouméaGoogle Scholar
  70. SPRFMO (2016) Report of the 4th scientific committee meeting: 10–14 October 2016. South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management OrganisationGoogle Scholar
  71. Stanley RD, McElderry H, Mawani T, Koolman J (2011) The advantages of an audit over a census approach to the review of video imagery in fishery monitoring. ICES J Mar Sci 68:1621–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stanley RD, Karim T, Koolman J, Mc Elderry H (2015) Design and implementation of electronic monitoring in the British Columbia groundfish hook and line fishery: a retrospective view of the ingredients of success. ICES J Mar Sci 72:1230–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sylvia G, Harte M, Cusack C (2016) Challenges, opportunities and costs of electronic fisheries monitoring. Environmental Defense Fund, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  74. Takeuchi Y, Tremblay-Boyer L, Pilling GM, Hampton J (2016) Assessment of blue shark in the southwestern Pacific, vol WCPFC-SC12-2016/SA-WP-08 REV1. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, The Pacific CommunityGoogle Scholar
  75. Takeuchi Y, Pilling G, Hampton J (2017) Stock assessment of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the southwest Pacific Ocean. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, NouméaGoogle Scholar
  76. Tremblay-Boyer L, Brouwer S (2016) Review of available information on non-key shark species including mobulids and fisheries interactions, vol EB-WP-08. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Bali, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  77. van Helmond ATM, Chen C, Poos JJ (2015) How effective is electronic monitoring in mixed bottom-trawl fisheries? ICES J Mar Sci 72:1192–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Viechnicki J (2017) Electronic monitoring available for smaller fishing boat. https://www.kfsk.org/2017/08/10/electronic-monitoring-available-smaller-fishing-boats/. Accessed 30 May 2018
  79. Wallace F, Faunce C, Loefflad M (2013) Pressing rewind: a cause for pause on electronic monitoring in the North Pacific? ICES Document CM/2013J:11. Paper presented at the ICES annual science conference, Rejkjavik, IcelandGoogle Scholar
  80. Wallace F, Williams K, Towler R, McGauley K (2015) Innovative camera applications for electronic monitoring. In: Kruse GH et al (eds) Fisheries bycatch: global issues and creative solutions. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska, pp 105–117Google Scholar
  81. Walsh WA, Bigelow KA, Sender KL (2009) Decreases in shark catches and mortality in the Hawaii-based longline fishery as documented by fishery observers. Mar Coast Fish 1:270–282.  https://doi.org/10.1577/C09-003.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ward P, Myers RA (2005) Shifts in open-ocean fish communities coinciding with the commencement of commercial fishing. Ecology 86:835–847.  https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Watson JT, Bigelow KA (2014) Trade-offs among catch, bycatch, and landed value in the American Samoa longline fishery. Conserv Biol 28:1012–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Waugh SM, Filippi DP, Kirby DS, Abraham E, Walker N (2012) Ecological risk assessment for seabird interactions in Western and Central Pacific longline fisheries. Mar Policy 36:933–946.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. WCPFC (2015a) 7th annual report for the regional observer programme, WCPFC Technical Compliance Committee, Eleventh Regular Session, 23–29 September 2015, Pohnpei. Federated States of Micronesia, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, KoloniaGoogle Scholar
  86. WCPFC (2015b) First E-reporting and E-monitoring intersessional working group meeting (ERandEMWG1)—review of 2014/15 Activities, vol WCPFC-2015-ER and EMWG1-03. Nadi, FijiGoogle Scholar
  87. WCPFC (2015c) First e-reporting and e-monitoring intersessional working group meeting—summary report. Novotel Hotel, Nadi Fiji, 8–10 JulyGoogle Scholar
  88. WCPFC (2016a) 8th annual report for the regional observer programme, WCPFC Technical Compliance Committee, Twelfth Regular Session, 21–27 September 2016, Pohnpei. Federate States of Micronesia, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, KoloniaGoogle Scholar
  89. WCPFC (2016b) Agreed minimum standards and guidelines of the regional observer programme. Western Central Pacific Fisheries CommissionGoogle Scholar
  90. WCPFC (2017a) Thirteenth regular session of the commission—5–9 December 2016: summary report Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Denarau Island, FijiGoogle Scholar
  91. WCPFC (2017b) Thirteenth regular session of the technical and compliance committee: 27 September–3 October 2017, vol WCPFC14-2017-TCC13. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Pohnpei, Federated States of MicronesiaGoogle Scholar
  92. Williams P, Kirby DS, Beverly S (2009) Encounter rates and life status for marine turtles in WCPO longline and purse seine fisheries, vol WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-07. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee Fifth Regular Session, Port Vila, VanuatuGoogle Scholar
  93. Williams P, Tuiloma I, Falasi C (2016) Status of observer data management, vol WCPFC-TCC12-2016/ST Ip-02 rev.2. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Pacific CommunityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy J. Emery
    • 1
  • Rocio Noriega
    • 1
  • Ashley J. Williams
    • 1
  • James Larcombe
    • 1
  • Simon Nicol
    • 1
  • Peter Williams
    • 2
  • Neville Smith
    • 2
  • Graham Pilling
    • 2
  • Malo Hosken
    • 2
  • Stephen Brouwer
    • 2
  • Laura Tremblay-Boyer
    • 2
  • Thomas Peatman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agriculture and Water ResourcesAustralian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES)CanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Secretariat of the Pacific CommunityNouméaNew Caledonia

Personalised recommendations