Technical Source Document on the Governance of Electronic Monitoring (EM) Systems for Industrial Tuna Fisheries

The report outlines the governance needs, implementation phases, and structural scenarios for Electronic Monitoring (EM) in industrial tuna fisheries. It emphasizes the transition toward performance-based standards to accommodate rapid technological evolution in AI and machine learning, while comparing centralized versus decentralized governance models and various service provider engagement strategies.

• Successful EM implementation requires a comprehensive governance framework beyond minimum standards, including national legislation, policy guidance, multinational agreements for data sharing, and infrastructure for data analysis.
• The document advocates for 'performance standards' over 'technical standards' to ensure fisheries management frameworks remain adaptive to rapid technological changes without requiring constant regulatory amendments.
• Tuna RFMOs are at varying stages of EM adoption: IOTC and ICCAT have adopted standards, WCPFC aims for adoption by the end of 2024, and IATTC is on track for 2025.
• Three primary governance scenarios are proposed: Centralized Governance (RFMO-led), Decentralized and Harmonized Governance (member-state led but meeting RFMO standards), and various Service Provider engagement models.
• EM Service Provider engagement can follow a 'Sole Provider Model' for tight integration and efficiency, or a 'Multiple Provider Model' to encourage innovation and cost competition.
• Three certification mechanisms for EM systems are identified: Service Provider Approval (most flexible for innovation), Type Approval (familiar but burdensome), and Minimum Standards (highest autonomy for members but hardest to harmonize).
• The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) can reduce human review burdens through object identification and activity recognition, but requires new governance for auditing accuracy and acceptable error rates.
• Financial considerations are identified as the most significant research gap due to a lack of transparency regarding program costs and the financial implications of different cost-recovery mechanisms.
• Data Review Center (DRC) structures significantly influence program costs; options include national DRCs for higher data control or shared regional/outsourced DRCs to reduce infrastructure burdens.

APA

Garren, M., Michelin, M., & Maharaj, V. (n.d.). Technical Source Document on the Governance of Electronic Monitoring (EM) Systems for Industrial Tuna Fisheries. WWF International. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/751/8u0t3pfcg4_WWF_Governance_of_EM_Technical_Source_Document_EN.pdf

Chicago

Garren, Melissa, Mark Michelin, and Vishwanie Maharaj. Technical Source Document on the Governance of Electronic Monitoring (EM) Systems for Industrial Tuna Fisheries. WWF International, n.d. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/751/8u0t3pfcg4_WWF_Governance_of_EM_Technical_Source_Document_EN.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Garren |first1=Melissa |last2=Michelin |first2=Mark |last3=Maharaj |first3=Vishwanie |title=Technical Source Document on the Governance of Electronic Monitoring (EM) Systems for Industrial Tuna Fisheries |publisher=WWF International |url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/751/8u0t3pfcg4_WWF_Governance_of_EM_Technical_Source_Document_EN.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{garrenndtechnical, author = {Garren, Melissa and Michelin, Mark and Maharaj, Vishwanie}, title = {{Technical Source Document on the Governance of Electronic Monitoring (EM) Systems for Industrial Tuna Fisheries}}, institution = {WWF International}, url = {https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/751/8u0t3pfcg4_WWF_Governance_of_EM_Technical_Source_Document_EN.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }