������

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Fisheries in the Commonwealth

“The Commonwealth” is a voluntary association of 54 independent countries (Figure 1.1) that can be divided into 5 distinct regions: Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Americas, the Pacific and Europe. ������ to over 2.4 billion people, member states represent both advanced and developing economies.[1] Of the 54 member states, only 7 are landlocked. Most are islands, including two-thirds of all small island developing states (SIDS) globally. The larger member states, including Australia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Canada and the United Kingdom, have long coastlines.[2] Thus, marine resources are an important part of life, and fisheries play a significant role for most Commonwealth populations as a source of income and food.[3] Both marine and inland fisheries are fundamental in poverty alleviation, food security, gender empowerment, cultural services, ecosystem function and biodiversity,[4] including for landlocked countries such as Uganda, Zambia and Malawi.[5] Just as the member states themselves are diverse, the fishery industries within the major regions of the Commonwealth are equally varied.[6]

Figure 1.1: Map of ‘The Commonwealth’ showing 54 independent countries across Africa, Asia, Caribbean and the America's, Europe, and the Pacific

Member countries are shown in navy. Source: /member-countries [accessed 28/09/2021].  

 

Small-scale and artisanal fisheries (referred to as SSF herein) represent a diverse and dynamic subsector that contribute to about half of global fish catches and employ more than 90 per cent of the world’s capture fisheries and fish workers.[7] SSF are broadly described as employing labour-intensive harvesting, processing, and distribution technologies to exploit marine and inland fishery resources. However, the specifics of SSF vary greatly depending on the country and/or culture in which they operate.[8] SSF are often subsistence and focus on supplying local and domestic markets.[9] However, export-orientated production within some SSF operations is increasing due to greater market integration and globalisation.[10]

In comparison, large-scale fisheries (referred to as LSF herein) in many cases are controlled by fishing companies and larger enterprises with the fishers themselves involved as employees instead of business owners. Such operations often utilise large fishing vessels, which are typically mechanised and operate using more advanced fishing technologies than SSF. These larger vessels typically land fish in well-developed ports with established infrastructure and services rather than the small, informal landings sites used by many SSF.[11] LSF often have stronger political and economic influence compared to SSF even though they employ much fewer workers. As a result, SSF communities commonly had less influence in national fisheries management decisions and had suffered at the hands of inequality.[12] This is, however, changing as the importance of SSF to livelihoods and poverty alleviation is increasingly recognised.

1.2 Challenges facing global fisheries

Fisheries are inherently complex systems, fraught with a plethora of challenges (Figure 1.2). Multiple stakeholder groups share common interests in exploiting shared, often transboundary stocks. In the marine environment, this complexity is amplified by the difficulty of operating at sea; whilst in freshwater systems, multiple non-fishery-related inputs (pollution run off, damming, deforestation, etc.) have significant impacts. Given the importance of fisheries and fish for livelihoods and food security, the challenges faced by fisheries have significant implications. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, where under-nourishment is prevalent, fish offers communities an essential source of micro-nutrients including iron, iodine, zinc, calcium, vitamin A and vitamin C. This makes fish an essential staple food, especially in the diets of children (<5 years) and women, particularly during pregnancy.[13]

Figure 1.2: Infographic highlighting the primary challenges facing fisheries globally

 

Unsustainable practices: Globally, marine and aquatic ecosystems are under increasing pressure mainly through unsustainable fishing and aquaculture practices, anthropogenic pollution, climate change and ocean acidification.[14] As a result, in 2017, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations estimated that the proportion of fish stocks that are within sustainable limits was 66 per cent, down from 90 per cent in 1974.[15][16] Unsustainable fishing practices vary greatly by region and may reflect the productivity of fish stocks themselves, the resultant catches by fishers, the economic profits made from the catches of these fishers as well as the downstream supply chain that rely on the fish. Without improvements in the sustainability of fisheries, dwindling fish stocks will therefore prove a significant problem for not only fishers and those who rely on fish for food but also associated fishery industries.

Fisheries governance: Fisheries are inherently difficult to govern. Effective governance requires balancing an array of social, economic and environmental objectives that are not always mutually compatible. Economic objectives such as increasing food production employment may come at the cost of environmental objectives increasing catch results in overfishing.[17] Divergences between environmental and economic objectives are further complicated due to an often limited dialogue and lack of coordination between fisheries conservationists and management bodies.[18] The “open access” nature of marine areas where access rights have not been defined or enforced further complicates fisheries governance. Open access areas combined with the behavioural tendency of an individual to maximise personal benefits without consideration of the wider good[19] often result in overcapitalisation of fishers and the eventual overexploitation of the stocks upon which they rely. To combat this, various measures, especially at the international level, have been implemented to convert open access fisheries into ones with clearly defined access rights.[20] When competition exists between SSF and LSF, the consequences for SSF can be devastating as large vessels may gain disproportionate legal access through quotas, or otherwise monopolise catches through their industrial-scale technologies, while SSF struggle to land catch for subsistence.[21] Despite increasing awareness and increasing management efforts in many nations and regions globally, countless fisheries are still fully open access with little effective management, which often hinders the sustainable use of the commercial fish stocks within these areas.

Fisheries management: The SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) acronym is widely viewed as a benchmark of good management objectives,[22] but in the case of fisheries, this can be difficult to attain. Modern fisheries management is widely based on objectives regarding stock biomass and operates through regulating fishing mortality (the number of fish removed from a stock by fishing operations). Although this allows for specific, measurable objectives to be set, such as limiting the activity of targeted fisheries to allow a stock to recover to a pre-specified target biomass,[23] monitoring and assessing the impacts of fisheries is, in many cases, difficult and costly.[24] Furthermore, many fisheries governance methods are vastly under-resourced.[25] This, in turn, limits the data available to feedback into improving fisheries management and implementing effective fisheries policies. It is also difficult to set time-constrained objectives in complex ecosystems, such as marine and aquatic environments, where there are multiple overlapping factors affecting stock biomass and abundance.[26] For example, climate change may cause unpredicted decreases in the productivity of a fish stock. Failure to recognise such decreases in productivity and manage accordingly increases the likeliness of overfishing and overexploitation.[27] Just as marine and aquatic ecosystems themselves are diverse, fisheries managers face handling a wide array of fisheries stakeholders and fishing techniques, from simple, single-person SSF operations through to technologically advanced, multi-person LSF operations. This further complicates the design of standardised management efforts.[28] The lack of appropriate management and enforcement in many regions has led to the widespread overexploitation of fish stocks. This overfishing, however, results from legal as well as illegal fishing activities.[29] The significance of this overexploitation is not to be overlooked.

Climate change: Climate change is also affecting global fisheries through various means, including ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation and sea-level rise.[30] Tropical regions are particularly at risk due to rising temperatures disrupting fish stock distribution, with the maximum catch potential of tropical fish stocks in some tropical regions projected to decline by up to 40 per cent by 2050.[31] This, in turn, threatens food security and the well-being of coastal communities, particularly those who heavily rely on fisheries for sustenance and/or finance.[32] As well as affecting fisheries yield directly, climate change induced sea-level rise threatens coastal communities and infrastructure.[33] Furthermore, increases in extreme weather events also threaten human health, particularly in coastal communities.[34]

Competing interests: In many regions, there are growing concerns regarding conflicts over fishery resources, further complicating fisheries governance and management. For example, in the South China Sea, multiple nations (China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei) have competing claims over rights to the marine resources in the area. During the 1980s and 90s, Vietnam and China engaged in conflict that resulted in fatalities over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. Although much of these larger scale conflicts have subsided, today, there are continued issues that result in many murders at sea annually. Despite the fisheries of the area providing livelihoods to individuals across much of the region, fisheries still often takes a back seat to harvesting the large reserves of minerals and oil that are thought to be present in the area of conflict.[35] This secondary importance means that the rate of growing competition is often not met with growing resource allocation for management and fisheries enforcement operations. However, technology development in the monitoring and enforcement have grown considerably in the last decade largely driven by the known loss of legal fishing opportunities (see Supplementary Materials). Similarly, competing claims for marine resource allocation between sectors add additional pressure to fisheries. Fishers can often find themselves operating in an increasingly congested area as space becomes increasingly scarce, particularly in coastal regions. More traditional marine users, including fisheries and shipping, now must often compete against a wide (and growing) array of new sectors. For example, as countries focus on making the switch to renewable energy, the huge spatial demands of wind farms pose a new set of challenges for fisheries.[36] To date, however, this is often only the case in more developed nations that are making commitments to net zero carbon emissions and those that can afford the development of “clean” energy infrastructure.[37]

Social issues: Social issues within fisheries span from individual human rights through sectoral issues and societal values. Despite the known importance of considering social issues in fisheries management and governance, in most cases, fisheries management policies focus on environmental/ biological objectives and the maximisation of sustainable yield production and neglect social considerations.[38] Social objectives that do exist in fisheries management are commonly vague, difficult to measure and considered an afterthought following biological and economic objectives.[39] Fishing communities and the wider sector therefore still often suffer at the hands of biological and economic management decisions which can result in unemployment, outmigration, weaker community structures, economic difficulties and in extreme cases, food security issues.[40] For example, the introduction of the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy[41] that resulted in the decommissioning of fleets, quota restrictions and technical measures is thought to be a large contributor to increasing numbers of fishers leaving the sector and many within the sector now struggling to make a living.[42] Balancing the triple bottom line objectives of fisheries (environmental, economic and social) successfully is therefore a consistent challenge that unfortunately many still fail to accomplish.

Human rights: Despite growing pressure on the industry to prove that seafood is sustainably sourced in an environmental sense, certification schemes are largely less interested in the welfare of fishers themselves.[43] Human rights and labour abuses within seafood supply chains have been highlighted in marine and inland fisheries across the globe. In the most extreme cases, fishers are exploited via human trafficking and slavery and suffer from terrible working conditions, such as those reported by Bloomberg Businessweek in 2012 that saw fishers on a South Korea-flagged ship working 30-hour shifts in horrifying working conditions while being subjected to physical and sexual abuse.[44]

Personal safety: It is widely accepted that working within the fisheries sector is a dangerous occupation. This has been confirmed by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), who estimated that annually the capture fisheries industry sees 80 fatalities per 100,000 fishers.[45] This is likely an underestimate as it is very plausible that fatality rates in countries that do not keep records are likely higher than those who do have consistent recording processes in place. Personal safety within the fisheries sector depends on a much wider range of factors other than the technical aspects of fishing vessels. Even well-designed and maintained vessels can suffer at the hands of poor practice and inadequate seamanship.[46] For example, the main cause of accidents in the fishing industry is human error, which is estimated to account for 80 per cent of accidents within the industry. Reducing risks to personal safety within fisheries requires ensuring that the vessels and equipment used are fit for purpose, crew are sufficiently trained and highly competent, and management practices that focus on personnel safety are successfully implemented.[47] Issues regarding personal safety within the sector are somewhat amplified in developing countries. Compared to the mostly industrialised LSF of developed countries, fisheries in developing countries are often low-budget SSF operations, which receive minimal attention from government and policy makers.[48] Vessels used in SSF in developing nations are therefore often simple vessels, in some cases, unmotorised, with limited equipment for navigation, communication and safety.[49] This means that such operations can be at a greater risk because they do not benefit from technologies that can reduce risk exposure. Simple examples may be navigation devices and weather prediction tools as well as personal safety beacons and life jackets.[50]

Gender discrimination: Although the catch sector is still largely dominated by men, women make up a significant part of the landing, processing and marketing links in fisheries supply chains. In many cases, women actually outnumber men in non-catch sector links of the supply chain.[51] Although there are large data gaps surrounding quantifying women’s involvement in fisheries, extrapolating from available data allowed WorldFish to estimate that roughly 50 per cent of global fisheries workers are women.[52] The role of women in fisheries, however, is often unrecorded or unacknowledged, resulting in their under-representation and in many cases exclusion from fisheries management decision-making processes.[53] As a result, women suffer from several factors within the sector including limited access to and control over assets and resources, constraining gender norms, time and labour burdens of unpaid work, and barriers to sustaining entrepreneurship.[54]

Gender and fisheries #1

Although the catch sector is still largely dominated by men, women make up a significant part of the landing, processing, and marketing links in many fisheries supply chains. Often, women actually outnumber men in non-catch sector links of the supply chain (Figure 1.3). Although there are large data gaps surrounding quantifying women’s involvement in fisheries, extrapolating from available data allowed WorldFish to estimate that roughly 50 per cent of global fisheries workers are women.[55] The role of women in fisheries, however, is often unrecorded or unacknowledged, resulting in their under-representation and in many cases exclusion from fisheries management decision-making processes.[56] As a result, women face multiple challenges within the sector including limited access to and control over assets and resources, constraining gender norms, time and labour burdens of unpaid work, and barriers to sustaining entrepreneurship[57] (Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3: Summary of roles performed by women n fisheries.

Source: [accessed 28/09/2021]

Failure to consider the role of women in fisheries has indirect impacts on fisheries communities. Women’s fisheries activities, particularly in SSF, disproportionately contribute to household food security because seafood harvested by women is the most likely to be consumed by their household members.[58] Furthermore, income earned by women is more likely to be used to purchase food and other household expenses. As a result, a lack of consideration and inclusion of women in fisheries management decisions can have knock-on effects on the wider fishing community. This can also have consequences for the effectiveness of fisheries management and conservation efforts as women’s fisheries knowledge is often overlooked. This can result in failure to incorporate valuable ecological and economic local knowledge in decision-making processes.[59]

Gender and fisheries #2

Equal rights and representation must be afforded to women to ensure their interests and needs are met, and the overall sustainability of the fisheries sector is improved.[60] Digitalisation can play a part in this through addressing some of the barriers and challenges women within the fisheries sector face. For example, studies on women clam collectors have shown that they often earn very little due to their weak bargaining power within the supply chain, which is a large system characterised by intermediaries, unfair transport fees, lack of interest by officials and policymakers and limited access to training and extension. Overcoming this requires efforts to ensure women are included in profitable markets and enterprises.[61]

Women, however, may also be particularly disadvantaged when it comes to digitalisation in fisheries. A “Survey of Adult Skills” conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found information and communication technology (ICT) intensity in skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers to be low compared to other sectors, with women scoring lower than men in most sectors[62] (Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.4: Occupations’ exposure to digitalisation by gender.
Source: [accessed: 28/09/2021].

Addressing the gender gap in fisheries sector improves the financial security of women within the sector, as well as facilitate their access to education, information and decision-making processes. This will not only improve the lives of women themselves but also have wider benefits for fishing communities and the wider sector. This can be aided through digitalisation efforts, such as accessing online marketplaces, but for women to benefit from such tools, there must also be conscious efforts made to ensure the gender gap in terms of digitalisation is also addressed.

COVID-19: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant economic consequences for most sectors, including fisheries. The FAO reports that the impacts of COVID-19 on fisheries and aquacultures sectors have been varied.[63] SSF are facing difficulties due to the closure of markets, limited storage facilities, falling wholesale fish prices, new sanitary and physical distancing measures, and mobility restrictions affecting the transfer of fish to markets. Difficulties to maintain social distancing onboard vessels result in vessels operating with fewer crew, which can result in increased working hours and compromised safety measures for those onboard, which puts the well-being and health of fishers at risk. Meanwhile, those working aboard LSF vessels who often work in rotations of several weeks before being replaced by other crew are unable to travel home due to travel restrictions and quarantine periods. This results in crew being required to work for an extended number of weeks, which increases the likeliness of fatigue, onboard accidents and stress.[64]

It is not only fishing operations themselves that have suffered at the hands of the pandemic. The work of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RMFOs), which are responsible for managing fish stocks that overlap the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of multiple countries or are in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), also faces difficulties. For RMFOs, the pandemic has made the fight against IUU fisheries more difficult. Social distancing and travel restrictions have reduced the capacity for monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), especially regarding onboard observer programmes. As a result, since the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been increased opportunities for IUU fishing to go unnoticed. The pandemic has also reduced the capability of RMFOs to collect data for stock assessment purposes and the state of ecosystems, which in turn limits the scope for effectively managing stocks.[65] This is likely to be something that will be felt for years to come as 2020 and 2021 assessments are lacking and mean holes in data collection efforts will remain in assessment time series, something that has likely impacted marine environmental monitoring efforts globally.

Fish and fish products that are highly dependent on international trade have suffered in the early stages of the pandemic at the hands of restrictions and the closure of global markets.[66] Similarly, fresh fish and shellfish supply chains have also been severely impacted by the closure of restaurants and other food service industries. The seafood processing sector has similarly been impacted in some cases due to reductions in consumer demand and reductions in product volumes. Women in particular have suffered at the hands of lost business in the processing sector as they form the majority of the post-harvest supply chain.[67] Despite the various sectoral challenges faced by the sector at the hands of COVID-19, addressing these issues has already sparked innovation in some areas and will hopefully spur the uptake of new technologies.[68]

COVID-19 – A catalyst of change?

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in worldwide lockdowns and significant economic consequences for many industries globally.[69] Fish and fish products that are highly reliant on international trade suffered in the early stages of the pandemic due to restrictions and closures of global markets. Fresh fish and shellfish supply chains were severely impacted by the closures of food service sectors, such as hotels and restaurants. Closures also occurred within the processing sector due to reduced consumer demand. Closures within the processing sector had significant impacts, especially on women, who make up the majority of the post-harvest workforce.[70]

For small-scale fisheries (SSF), the pandemic has caused issues through the closure of markets, limited storage facilities, falling wholesale fish prices and new sanitary requirements and physical distancing measures which have resulted in vessels operating with fewer crew. In many cases, this has further caused increases in working hours and compromised safety measures for those onboard, which ultimately puts the well-being and health of fishers at risk.[71] As a result, there has been vast reductions in SSF activities.[72] Meanwhile, those working aboard LSF vessels, who often work in rotations of several weeks before being replaced by other crew, are unable to travel home due to travel restrictions and quarantine periods. This results in crew being required to work for an extended number of weeks, which increases the likeliness of on-board accidents, fatigue, and stress.[73]

Despite the widespread disruption to the sector, the pandemic has sparked some “proactive innovations” that have altered business operations, the value chain structure and relations between value chain actors while providing the industry with new opportunities to improve performance. For example, many fishers and consumers have started using digital platforms for marketing or procurement and more fishers are selling directly to customers or offering delivery services.[74]

A POSITIVE: In Malaysia, “MyFishman”, a free seafood subscription and delivery service, was impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak as the company was unable to supply to restaurants, wholesale fish markets, grocery stalls or coffee shops as most had to close.[75] However, through “e-commerce”, MyFishman saw sales increased by around 150 per cent during the first 2 weeks of government-imposed lockdowns as people stocked up with food at home.[76] Increased online retailing has similarly, in many cases, developed at a dramatic rate within the sector, especially in Asian and North America markets. COVID-19 in many ways has been the catalyst for the evolution of the fisheries sector as an e-commerce-based market.[77]

A NEGATIVE: The pandemic has also affected the sector through disruptions to MCS operations. For instance, the work of RMFOs, which are responsible for managing fish stocks that overlap the EEZs of multiple countries and ABNJ, has become increasingly difficult. Social distancing and travel restrictions have reduced the capacity for MCS, especially in the realm of onboard observer programmes.[78] As a result, there have been increased opportunities for IUU fishing to go unnoticed. This has also reduced the capability of RMFOs to collect data for stock assessment purposes and the state of ecosystems, which in turn limits the scope for effectively managing stocks.[79]

Digitalisation

Despite the myriad challenges facing the fisheries sector, there are still a great deal of opportunities to improve practices and overcome hurdles to sustainable, safe and equitable fisheries globally. Digital innovations along with data infrastructure, business development and investment and appropriate enabling environments will play a big role in the future of fisheries, more specifically – digitalisation. While digitisation broadly refers to changing information from analogue to digital formats, the correct definition is more complex. “Digitalisation” is the use of digital technologies to change the business model and provide new revenue and value-producing opportunities for a business, organisation or entity[80] (see examples later). With specific regard to the fisheries context, digitalisation can be defined to refer to the use of digital technologies, innovations and data to transform the business models and practices across the fisheries value chain and address structural bottlenecks in productivity, postharvest handling, market access, finance and supply chain management. This is aimed at achieving greater income for SSF, improving food and nutrition security, building climate resilience and expanding inclusion of youth and women.

The following table presents fishery enforcement challenges that can be addressed with existing or soon-to-be available digital innovations (services and technologies). First three columns are taken from Technologies for Improving Fisheries Monitoring (2018)[81]. Note, not all these tables are used in the Commonwealth countries analysed in this report. Acronyms are listed in Table 1.1

 

Table 1.1: Fishery enforcement challenges

Challenge/need	Digital technology	Solution/service
IUU fishing of highly migratory species and transboundary stocks	Satellite imagery VMS data AIS data	Global Fishing Watch, Eyes on the Sea, Camio, Data Science for Social Good
Catch limit compliance – self-reported	Electronic logbooks on tablets smartphone apps	TNC e-Catch, DeckHand Apps: Abalobi, mFish, FACTS, FishBrain, iSnapper, FishAngler
Catch limit compliance – monitored	Low-cost cameras with data loggers	Flywire, ShellCatch
Effort limit compliance	Electronic logbooks on tablets, smartphone apps GPS trackers, low-cost VMS	TNC e-Catch, DeckHand Apps: Abalobi, mFish, FACTS, FishBrain, iSnapper, FishAngler PDS trackers, Remora trackers, SatLink artesanal VMS
Compliance with spatial restrictions (MPAs, TURFs, SPAG closures, etc.)	GPS trackers, low-cost VMS	PDS trackers, SatLink artesanal VMS, Data Science for Social Good tracking and alert software, Camio tracking and alert software
Compliance with seasonal restrictions	GPS trackers, VMS	PDS trackers, Remora trackers, SatLink artesanal VMS
Reducing bycatch of ocean wildlife	Cameras satellite imagery AI for detecting wildlife in images Acoustic monitoring of marine mammals	Flywire, ShellCatch, GoPro Planet Images, CVision SA Instrumentation
Illegal access to fishery	Radar, GPS trackers, VMS	Marine Monitor (M2) radar PDS trackers, Remora trackers, SatLink artesanal VMS
Seafood fraud	DNA scanning, blockchain ledgers	Conservation×DNA scanner, FishCoin
Fisher ID and vessel registry	Electronic registries	FINNS, FishTrax (web-based)
Compliance with size limits	Cameras AI software for image processing Web-based length quantification	Flywire, Shellcatch, TNC system, CVision, Poseidon
Data management	Hardware to integrate data from multiple sensors Databases with user friendly interfaces	Nautilus, Olrac Akvo, Hydroswarm
Predicting illegal activity	Machine learning	Google TensorFlow
Incentivising data collection and sharing	Blockchain ledger	FishCoin

Acronyms: VMS = Vessel Monitoring System, AIS = Automatic Identification System, TNC = The Nature Conservancy, FACTS = The Fishery Activity and Catch tracking System, CVision = Computer Vision, SA = St Andrews, DNA = Deoxyribonucleic acid.

 

1.3 This report

To harness opportunities that digitalisation can play in improving fisheries globally, a common understanding and operationalisation of the concept of digitalisation is needed. This desk-based report aims to evaluate the current state of fisheries and digitalisation within the five regions of the Commonwealth with the goal of building a strong supply side connectivity.

The current state of play of fisheries and progress towards digitalisation that has been made to date was reviewed from the published literature with regional information also based on interviews with key informant (KI) experts.

The concept of digitalisation herein is divided into three main pillars, each of which are supported by a common base:

• Pillar 1: Digital innovations
• Pillar 2: Data infrastructure
• Pillar 3: Business development services
• Base: Enabling environments for digitalisation

1.4 Methodology

To understand the potential of digitalisation within the fisheries sector, the current state of “digital fisheries” must first be understood. In terms of the Commonwealth, this requires the analysis of current digitalisation trends within the fisheries sectors across the five Commonwealth regions. To do so requires the understanding of these four elements of digitalisation (as summarised below and illustrated in Figure 1.5). The report also draws on specific case studies that highlight the utility of digitalisation in fisheries. It ends with specific policy recommendations on the role of digitalisation in the short-term response, medium-term recovery, and long-term resilience of the fisheries sector.

Summary of the four elements of digitalisation of fisheries

1. Digital innovations: The state of digital innovations within the sector consisting of “digital solutions/services” such as SOS services, market linkage, financial access, supply chain and trade, and safety at sea to name a few. The “digital technologies” such as digital infrastructure and hardware – GPS, internet networks, mobile phones, sensors, blockchains, drones, robots, etc. required to operate, offer and access the digital services and solutions are also included under this first pillar of digitalisation. The current state of digital fisheries solutions/services in a country/region and how accessible they are to the users is key for digitalisation of extension services. The ability of the relevant actors to tap into the emerging digital technologies for data management and service provision determines the current exploitation and future exploration of digitalisation for fisheries.

2. Data infrastructure: The state of fisheries data infrastructure consists of a set of fundamental facilities, the basic structure of the fisheries innovation system that is needed to enable multiple sources of data to be sourced, combined, processed, analysed, governed and made accessible for exchange, use, and re-use. Data infrastructure enables efficiency of “quality content” derived from reliable maps, weather data and market data etc. and “digital identity” covering data on users such as fisherfolks, traders, consumers, research networks, financial institutions, and cooperatives, etc. Providing reliable and authentic fisheries-sector content is one of the challenges affecting the performance of digital fisheries solutions.

3. Business development services: The state of business development includes the nature of financiers such as donors, governments, private sector; the business ecosystem; business models of the digital solutions; and payment for the products and services to ensure future continuous adoption, scale, and sustainability. One of the key challenges of the limited adoption, use and scale of digital solutions for fisheries is due to the business ecosystem. The development and deployment of the solutions thrive on money. For sustainability – a factor that determines continuous use and scale – suitable investment must exist.

4. Enabling environments for digitalisation: The state of the enabling environments for digitalisation which assesses the “rules of the game” include digital/non-digital factors; and fisheries/non-fisheries factors like infrastructure and access, policies and strategies, knowledge and networking, literacy and skills, etc. Five primary factors (digital and non-digital; fisheries and non-fisheries) can be used to assess the enabling environment of digitalisation of fisheries in a country/region.

• Infrastructure and access – affordable and equitable access to well-functioning infrastructure, both digital and non-digital, is a prerequisite for fisheries digitalisation at scale.
• Policies and strategies – digital and non-digital strategies and policies both at national and regional scales. These must take a central role in integrating digital strategies.
• Knowledge and networking – knowledge is central in research and development. The current digital fisheries knowledge space is characterised by scattered knowledge products and resources.
• Business ecosystem – the business environment for the services to reach markets.
• Literacy and skills – the ability to read and write, and competence or knowledge in a specified area.

The overall goal is sustainable, safe, and equitable fisheries globally.

 

Figure 1.5: Digital fisheries framework

 

Data and information gathering

This report was formulated using two distinct approaches for data and information gathering. Structured literature reviews were undertaken using keyword search terms (see “Search terms used” section in Supplementary Materials) that covered all countries within each of the five Commonwealth regions, key institutions and organisations known to be involved in fisheries technology development and digitalisation. In total, 1,360 search engine hits (both in Google and Google scholar) were reviewed for content pertinent to the development of this report. Of these 1,360 hits, 55 publications were deemed relevant and reviewed in greater detail. Relevant content was determined through a “pilot run” through related literature. For each report, a series of meta-data were extracted (Table 1.2).

 

Table 1.2: Table summarising the 19 data variables extracted from each publication.

Parameter	Description of parameter	Data input categories
Search engine	The search engine the publication was found via	Google or Google Scholar
Year	Year of publication	2004 - 2021 (1-year intervals)
Geography	The country or countries the publication reported on	Name of country/countries.
CW region	The Commonwealth region the publication reported on	Africa, Asia, The Americas Europe, Pacific or Multiple
Literature scale	The geographic scope of the publication	Local, national, or international
Fishery info	What type of fishery the publication focuses on	Marine, freshwater, small-scale fisheries, high seas fisheries, aquaculture, mariculture. Some are species and/or gear specific
Digital innovation	Does the publication discuss Pillar 1 topics	‘Y’ or ‘N’
Data infrastructure	Does the publication discuss Pillar 2 topics	‘Y’ or ‘N’
Business development/ investment	Does the publication discuss Pillar 3 topics	‘Y’ or ‘N’
Enabling environment for digitalisation	Does the publication discuss ‘base’ topics	‘Y’ or ‘N’
Challenges	What challenges linked to digitalisation does the publication discuss	Brief description
Specific technology	What technology linked to digitalisation does the publication discuss	Brief description
Value-adds	What value does the aspect of digitalisation discussed in the publication bring to the sector	Brief description
Cons	What are the drawbacks highlighted by the publication	Brief description
Solutions	What solutions are there to the challenges/cons discussed by the publication	Brief description
Sector/ stage of fisheries	What sector/stage in the fisheries supply chain does the publication refer to	Fishing, bycatch, planning, education, marketing, selling, storage, identification, information sharing, pricing, security or transparency
Funding opinions	How well funded are the digitalisation aspects discussed in the publication	Underfunded or well-funded
Funding source	Who is funding the digitalisation discussed	Names of government bodies, NGOs, and private companies funding digitalisation
Governance	Who is responsible for governing the digitalisation process within the sector	Names of government bodies, NGOs, and private companies funding digitalisation

Case studies of particular interest were also noted from the literature, and some are presented within the text, and some as standalone boxes with input from the companies themselves through online interviews (Table 1.3).

 

Table 1.3: Summary of the digital innovations funding examples presented in this report and the regions within each is used.

Name of company / organisation / technology	Brief description	Free to use?	Africa	Asia	Caribbean / Americas	Pacific	Europe
DASE	IUU evidence collection and upload via mobile phone	No – ‘cheap’	X
Abalobi	Digital & financial inclusion, transparent supply chains and increased market value through mobile phone application	No - Software As A Service (SaaS).	X
Global Fishing Watch	Collation and visualisation of Automatic Identification System (AIS) and Vessels Monitoring System (VMS) data to show fishing effort globally with some regionally specific studies / showcases	Yes – share information publicly, and for free	X	X	X	X	X
e-CAS	Fisheries catch and related statistics via a mobile phone application	NK	X
NavIC	Satellite constellation provides fishers with position information, weather information and a messaging service via smartphone app	NK		X
eACDS	Web-based application for fisheries officers	NK		X
MCASH	Mobile money platform that enables fishers to access formal financial services through the creation of a digital identity	Yes			X
Fleet One	Maritime broadband service, electronic catch documentation and traceability, and VMS	No – ‘cost conscious’ and flexible subscription packages		X
Fish Nutrients	Open-source tool for fish nutrients data	Yes	X	X	X	X	X
DCash	Blockchain based currency that allows users with a smartphone to use a mobile phone app to make payments via a QR code	Yes – pay or transfer money, without fees, in real time			X
FEWER	‘Fisheries Early Warning and Emergency Response’ system	¥���			X
TraSeable	Decentralised and distributed digital ledger of transactions used for improving traceability within fisheries supply chains	No - software-as-a-service (SaaS)				X
PeskyFish	Online fish marketplace and delivery service	Yes – free to download, but takes commission per sale					X
Quick Fish Guide	Guide which provides consumers with information on the sustainability of locally caught and consumed fish species	Yes					X
ATLAN Space	Artificial intelligence device installed on drones	No	X
FISH-i Africa	Web-based interactive communication platform which allows for the transfer and communication of information related to IUU fisheries	NK	X
Skylo Technologies	Cellular Narrowband Internet of Things for satellite communications	No – ‘affordable’		X
MCash	Mobile money platform	Yes		X
MyFishman	E-commerce platform - free seafood subscription and delivery service	Yes		X
Aeromapper Talons	‘Amphibian’ drones used for monitoring an MPA	No			X
Skylight	Maritime analysts to identify suspicious vessel behaviour	NK – ‘Skylight is available through partners like the UN Office of Drugs and Crime, National Geographic Pristine Seas, and the Wildlife Conservation Society.’	X	X	X	X	X

KI experts were sourced from the literature search. Some of these were interviewed (see Supplementary Material) to help corroborate information and provide additional insights, particularly in regions where data and information from the literature search were lacking. Each KI was sent a standard set of 11 questions and invited to respond to the questions and/or speak with the research team about their experience and thoughts on fisheries digitalisation in their respective regions. In some instances, KIs responded to the questions based on their experience in more than one region.

1.5 Limitations relevant to this report

The information collated and presented in this report is only as accurate as the sources upon which it relies. The method surveyed a large amount of both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature and current experts working in and with fisheries digitalisation. It is, however, entirely possible that there are additional data sources, case studies and solutions to the challenges facing fisheries that were not highlighted using the methods herein. Certain regions and countries within regions were difficult to find published literature for. This is likely due to a combination of the primary language of publication (e.g., many Asian countries publish primarily in their national languages rather than English) and the development of fisheries research and technology (some less developed nations in Africa had very little published information to draw from). Although such potential missing data/information is clearly acknowledged, we believe that this report is comprehensive in that it discusses all four elements (the three pillars and the base, discussed above) of digitalisation for each Commonwealth region and also discusses the importance of understanding where information/data is missing and what such deficiencies mean for digitalisation moving forward.

 

Digital Fisheries report homepage   Next chapter   

 

---

[1] The Commonwealth. The Commonwealth. /

[2] The Commonwealth. ‘Fisheries and the Fishing Industry in Commonwealth Countries’. Commonwealth of Nations.

[3] Sumaila, R. (2012) ‘Seas, Oceans and Fisheries: A Challenge for Good Governance’. The Round Table 101, 157–166.

[4] Funge-Smith, S. and A. Bennett (2019) ‘A fresh look at Inland Fisheries and Their Role in Food Security and Livelihoods’.

[5] FAO (2015). Fish Trade in Africa: An Update | GLOBEFISH | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[6] The Commonwealth. ‘Fisheries and the Fishing Industry in Commonwealth Countries’. Commonwealth of Nations.

[7] Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (2015).

[8] FAO. ‘A Research Agenda for Small-Scale Fisheries’.

[9] Smith, H. and X. Basurto (2019) ‘Defining Small-Scale Fisheries and Examining the Role of Science in Shaping Perceptions of Who and What Counts: A Systematic Review’. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, 236.

[10] FAO. ‘A Research Agenda for Small-Scale Fisheries’.

[11] Fisheries & Aquaculture | Food Loss and Waste in Fish Value Chains | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[12] Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (2015).

[13] Mosepele, K. and O.D. Kolawole (2017) ‘Fisheries Governance, Management and Marginalisation in Developing Countries: Insights from Botswana’. Cogent Food & Agriculture 3, 1338637.

[14] OECD (2020) OECD Review of Fisheries 2020.

[15] FAO (2020) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020.

[16] In 2017, among the FAO’s Major Fishing Areas, the Mediterranean and Black Sea had the highest percentage of stocks fished at unsustainable levels (62.5 per cent), followed by the Southeast Pacific (54.5 per cent) and the Southwest Atlantic (53.3 per cent). Meanwhile, the Eastern Central Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Northeast Pacific and Western Central Pacific had the lowest proportion (13–22 per cent) of stocks fished at biologically unsustainable levels. Other areas varied between 21 and 44 per cent in 2017 (FAO, SOFIA, 2020).

[17] OECD (2020) OECD Review of Fisheries 2020. 

[18] Grip, K. and S. Blomqvist (2020) ‘Marine Nature Conservation and Conflicts with Fisheries’. Ambio 49, 1328–1340.

[19] Ostrom, E. (2008) ‘Tragedy of the Commons’. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics 4.

[20] Sumaila, R. (2012) ‘Seas, Oceans and Fisheries: A Challenge for Good Governance’. The Round Table 101, 157–166

[21] Schuhbauer, A., R. Chuenpagdee, W.W.L. Cheung, K. Greer and U.R. Sumaila (2017) ‘How Subsidies Affect the Economic Viability of Small-Scale Fisheries’. Marine Policy 82, 114–121.

[22] Chand, A. (2021) ‘SMART Targets for Meaningful Action’. Nature Food 2, 224–224.

[23] Goti, L., Fitzpatrick, M., Doring, R., Reid, D., Mumford, J., and  Rindorf, A. (2018) ‘Overarching Sustainability Objectives Overcome Incompatible Directions in the Common Fisheries Policy’. Marine Policy 91, 49-57.

[24] OECD (2020) OECD Review of Fisheries 2020. 

[25] Watts, N. (2011) ‘A Commonwealth Fisheries Policy’.

[26] Goti, L., Fitzpatrick, M., Doring, R., Reid, D., Mumford, J., and  Rindorf, A. (2018) ‘Overarching Sustainability Objectives Overcome Incompatible Directions in the Common Fisheries Policy’. Marine Policy 91, 49-57.

[27] Free, C.M., Mangin, T., Molinos, J.G., Ojea, E., Burden, M., Costello. C, and Gaines, S.D. (2020) ‘Realistic Fisheries Management Reforms Could Mitigate the Impacts of Climate Change in Most Countries’. PLoS ONE 15, e0224347.

[28] Goti, L., Fitzpatrick, M., Doring, R., Reid, D., Mumford, J., and  Rindorf, A. (2018) ‘Overarching Sustainability Objectives Overcome Incompatible Directions in the Common Fisheries Policy’. Marine Policy 91, 49-57.

[29] Fox, C.J., G. Macfadyen and R. Cappell (2016) Capture Fisheries. London: ������.

[30] Barange, M. (2018) Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture: Synthesis of Current Knowledge, Adaptation and Mitigation Options.

[31] Lam, V.W.Y., Allison, E.H., Bell, J.D., Blythe, J., Cheung, W.W.L., Frolicher, T.L., Gasalla, M.A., and Sumaila, U.R.  (2020) ‘Climate Change, Tropical Fisheries and Prospects for Sustainable Development’. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1, 440–454.

[32] Oxenford, H.A. (2020) Climate Change and Fisheries. 4.

[33] Kulp, S.A. and B.H. Strauss (2019) ‘New Elevation Data Triple Estimates of Global Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding’. Nature Communications 10, 4844.

[34] Commonwealth Marine & Economies Programme (2021)

[35] Spijkers, J., Morrison, T.H., Blasiak, R., Cumming, G.S., Osborne, M., Watson, J. and Osterblom, H. (2018) ‘Marine Fisheries and Future Ocean Conflict’. Fish and Fisheries 19, 798–806.

[36] Jentoft, S. and M. Knol (2014) ‘Marine Spatial Planning: Risk or Opportunity for Fisheries in the North Sea?’ Maritime Studies 13, 1.

[37] Symes, D. and J. Phillipson (2009) ‘Whatever Became of Social Objectives in Fisheries Policy?’ Fisheries Research 95, 1–5.

[38] Gallizioli, G. (2014) ‘The social dimensions of the common fisheries policy: A review of current measures’. In Social Issues in Sustainable Fisheries Management (eds. Urquhart, J., T.G. Acott, D. Symes and M. Zhao), Netherlands: Springer, 65–78.

[39] Urquhart, J., T.G. Acott, D. Symes and M. Zhao (2014) ‘Introduction: social issues in sustainable fisheries management’. In Social Issues in Sustainable Fisheries Management (eds. Urquhart, J., T.G. Acott, D. Symes and M. Zhao), Netherlands: Springer, 1–20. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7911-2_1.

[40] Urquhart, J., T.G. Acott, D. Symes and M. Zhao (2014) ‘Introduction: social issues in sustainable fisheries management’. In Social Issues in Sustainable Fisheries Management (eds. Urquhart, J., T.G. Acott, D. Symes and M. Zhao), Netherlands: Springer, 1–20. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7911-2_1.

[41] European Union (2018) ‘Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)’.

[42] Urquhart, J., T. Acott, M. Reed and P. Courtney (2011) ‘Setting an Agenda for Social Science Research in Fisheries Policy in Northern Europe’. Fisheries Research 108, 240–247.

[43] Teh, L.C.L. Caddell, R., Allison, E.H., Finkbeiner, E.M., Kittinger, J.N., Nakamura, K.,  , Y. (2019) ‘The Role of Human Rights in Implementing Socially Responsible Seafood’. PLoS ONE 14, e0210241.

[44] Lewis, S.G., A. Alifano, M. Boyle and M. Mangel (2017) ‘Chapter 18 – human rights and the sustainability of fisheries’. In Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean (eds. Levin, P.S. and M.R. Poe), London: Academic Press, 379–396. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00018-0.

[45] International Labour Organization (1999) Note on the proceedings: Tripartite Meeting on Safety and Health in the Fishing Industry, Geneva, 13–17 December 1999/International Labour Organization, Sectoral Activities Programme. National Library.

[46] Lewis, S.G., A. Alifano, M. Boyle and M. Mangel (2017) ‘Chapter 18 – human rights and the sustainability of fisheries’. In Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean (eds. Levin, P.S. and M.R. Poe), London: Academic Press, 379–396. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00018-0.

[47] Zoolfakar, M.R., M.D.S. Manaf and A.H. Yahaya (2017) ‘Issues faced by fishermen on the implementation of STCW-F 1995: East Malaysia’. In 2017 IEEE 7th International Conference on Underwater System Technology: Theory and Applications (USYS), 1–5. doi:10.1109/USYS.2017.8309436.

[48] Cohen, P.J. Allison, E.H., Andrew, N.L., Cinner, J., Evans, L.S., Fabinyi, M., Garces, L.R. Hall, S.J. Hicks, C.C., Hughes, T.P., Jentoft, S., Mills, D.J. Masu, R., Mbaru, E.K. and Ratner, B.D. (2019) ‘Securing a Just Space for Small-Scale Fisheries in the Blue Economy’. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, 171.

[49] FAO. ‘Safety at Sea in Developing Countries’.

[50] FAO (2019) Safety at Sea for Small-Scale Fishers. FAO.

[51] Ogden, L.E. (2017) ‘Fisherwomen – The Uncounted Dimension in Fisheries Management: Shedding Light on the Invisible Gender’. BioScience 67, 111–117.

[52] WorldFish (2016) ‘Why Gender Equality Matters in Fisheries and Aquaculture’.

[53] Tilley, A. Burgos, A., Duarte, A., Reis Lopes, J., Eriksson, H., and Mills, D. (2021) ‘Contribution of Women’s Fisheries Substantial, but Overlooked, in Timor-Leste’. Ambio 50, 113–124.

[54] WorldFish (2016) ‘Why Gender Equality Matters in Fisheries and Aquaculture’.

[55] WorldFish (2016) ‘Why Gender Equality Matters in Fisheries and Aquaculture’.

[56] Tilley, A. Burgos, A., Duarte, A., Reis Lopes, J., Eriksson, H., and Mills, D. (2021) ‘Contribution of Women’s Fisheries Substantial, but Overlooked, in Timor-Leste’. Ambio 50, 113–124.

[57] WorldFish (2016) ‘Why Gender Equality Matters in Fisheries and Aquaculture’.

[58] Torell, E. Bilecki, D., Owusu, A., Crawford, B., Beran, K., and Kent, K.  (2019) ‘Assessing the Impacts of Gender Integration in Ghana’s Fisheries Sector’. Coastal Management 47, 507–526.

[59] Torell, E. Bilecki, D., Owusu, A., Crawford, B., Beran, K., and Kent, K.  (2019) ‘Assessing the Impacts of Gender Integration in Ghana’s Fisheries Sector’. Coastal Management 47, 507–526.

[60] FAO. Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Fisheries and Aquaculture. 12.

[61] FAO. Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Fisheries and Aquaculture. 12.

[62] OECD (2018) Bridging the Digital Gender Divide.

[63] FAO (2021) The Impact of COVID-19 on Fisheries and Aquaculture Food Systems, Possible Responses. doi:10.4060/cb2537en.

[64] FAO. ‘Q&A: COVID-19 Pandemic – Impact on Fisheries and Aquaculture’. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[65] OECD (2021) ‘COVID-19 and Multilateral Fisheries Management’. OECD.

[66] FAO. ‘Q&A: COVID-19 Pandemic – Impact on Fisheries and Aquaculture’. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[67] FAO. ‘Q&A: COVID-19 Pandemic – Impact on Fisheries and Aquaculture’. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[68] OECD (2021) ‘COVID-19 and Multilateral Fisheries Management’. OECD.

[69] IIED (2021) ‘Evaluating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Small-Scale Fisheries and Its Markets’. International Institute for Environment and Development.

[70] FAO. ‘Q&A: COVID-19 Pandemic – Impact on Fisheries and Aquaculture’. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[71] FAO. ‘Q&A: COVID-19 Pandemic – Impact on Fisheries and Aquaculture’. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[72] FAO. ‘Q&A: COVID-19 Pandemic – Impact on Fisheries and Aquaculture’. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[73] FAO. ‘Q&A: COVID-19 Pandemic – Impact on Fisheries and Aquaculture’. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[74] Belton, B. Rosen, L., Middleton, L., Ghazali, S., Mamun, A., Shieh, J., Noronha, H.S., Dhar, G., Ilyas, M., Price, C., Nasr-Allah, A., Elsira, I., Baliarsingh, B.K., Bostock, J., and Little, D.C. (2021) ‘COVID-19 Impacts and Adaptations in Asia and Africa’s Aquatic Food Value Chains’. Marine Policy 129, 104523.

[75] BBC News (2020) ‘Asia’s Fishermen and Farmers go Digital During Virus’. BBC News.

[76] BBC News (2020) ‘Asia’s Fishermen and Farmers go Digital During Virus’. BBC News.

[77] FAO (2021) The Impact of COVID-19 on Fisheries and Aquaculture Food Systems, Possible Responses. doi:10.4060/cb2537en

[78] FAO. ‘Q&A: COVID-19 Pandemic – Impact on Fisheries and Aquaculture’. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[79] OECD (2021) ‘COVID-19 and Multilateral Fisheries Management’. OECD.

[80] Gartner. ‘Definition of Digitalization – Gartner Information Technology Glossary’. Gartner.

[81] Fujita, R., C. Cusack, R. Karasik, H. Takade-Heumacher and C. Baker (2018) ‘Technologies for Improving Fisheries Monitoring’. 71. 

---

 

Digital Fisheries report homepage   Next chapter   Back to top ⬆