Our ‘Data, Tech and Innovation in UK Fisheries’ event heard from a range of technologists and innovators, who spoke about how data and technology are helping to improve the UK fisheries sector.
A full recording of the online event can be found here:
Following the presentations, Parliamentarians and attendees put their questions to the panel. Written summaries of all questions and answers are provided below. Please note that these answers reflect the views of the panelists, rather than the APPG Secretariat or its Members.
Michael MacCorquodale - CEO / Head of Finance, Bullfish Market
Michael MacCorquodale introduced Bullfish, a unique two-stage digital marketplace that streamlines the seafood supply chain, helping fishermen get better prices for their catch and improving traceability of seafood products.
What granularity of spatial data would the catch sector provide and buyers receive?
MacCorquodale answered that data is collected to the accuracy achieved by mobile devices but, due to the fact that fishermen are not keen on sharing fishing trip details, Bullfish only shows this geo-location to buyers at a limited level of accuracy. Additionally, he explained that Bullfish captures all the required data for the completion of landing declarations to fisheries departments.
Who deals with the documentation for first sales?
MacCorquodale said that Bullfish is designed for commercial users, and therefore first-sale buyers are responsible for buyers' paperwork. He added that buyers need to be registered as first-sale buyers on the RBS scheme.
With so many individual buyers, who is responsible for the logistics of moving the fish from seller to first buyer?
MacCorquodale answered that Bullfish default to the buyer arranging logistics, whilst offering the seller the option to arrange logistics - which could potentially earn them more money for the sale.
Is there a cost to fishermen to use this market? Do the costs differ for different users?
MacCorquodale stated that Bullfish is free to use for fishermen and anybody selling on the platform, and that buyers pay a small percentage of the sale price.
How can Bullfish guarantee quality of product?
MacCorquodale stated that quality of product at first sale can be confirmed on receipt of product, and that funds are not released until the product has been approved. He continued that this process is backed up by ratings and reviews, so buyers can purchase from selected vessels with a history of good practice and high quality.
What is the accreditation process for the first market? Do you have partner organisations on site that can deal with post Brexit certification?
MacCorquodale explained that Bullfish’s requirement for first sales is that sellers are a registered fishing vessel, and that buyers are registered buyers on the RBS buyers and sellers scheme. He said that Bullfish does not deal directly with export paperwork, and that this would be completed by the relevant person in the export chain.
How do you picture the transition from the current situation where boats may only have one buyer to choose from, to a fully open market? How can you prevent market manipulation by buyers?
MacCorquodale said that Bullfish enables fishers to sell some or all of their catch either before fishing or after they have landed. He explained that there is no pressure on users to instantly start selling all of their catch. Michael said that the situation they are currently trying to resolve is the fact that fishers are not able to sell their whole catch due to Covid and Brexit, and that they expect an open market to remove any market manipulation.
How do you overcome inaccuracies in quality and size grading from suppliers?
MacCorquodale explained that auctions are created with specific grading sizes displayed, and that full details of the fishing trip are displayed to buyers and backed up by ratings, reviews and fishermen’s profile pages. Michael said that currently, all evidence that a boat is a ‘good boat’ is anecdotal, and that Bullfish offers more security than that.
Can the supply offered on the platform be filtered by potential buyers for MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) or other types of certification?
MacCorquodale said that there currently isn’t a filter, but that this information can be displayed on sellers’ profiles.
Do you have an API (application programming interface) to pull the data?
MacCorquodale stated that Bullfish are hoping to engage with government legislators to enable this, and that this would be easily enabled from their end.
Matthew Frow - Kingfisher Manager, Seafish
Matthew Frow demonstrated the Kingfisher Bulletin, a free new service that provides real-time information to fishermen about hazards or marine activities within their fishing area.
Where is the information on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Kingfisher bulletin pulled from? And does it cover the full range of UK designations?
Frow answered that MPAs aren’t currently included as alerts on the bulletin - the ones seen in the demo were a case of ‘future proofing’ and forward planning. He continued that the team are partway through a project to chart information on fishing restrictions surrounding the UK, as the bulletin is perfectly placed to start supplying this information to the industry. Matt stated that these alerts will not be released until all MPAs have been charted and quality checked.
Have you found any MPAs have been incorrectly defined (e.g. errors in area coverage) when recorded by regulators? Do you act as a secondary audit for regulator accuracy?
Frow said that in relation to the Seafish ‘MPA Project’, in collating MPAs, no plotting errors have so far been found, nor have Kingfisher provided an audit of MPA spatial entities. All MPA geometries have been provided from well-regarded data sources such as the JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee) or individual nature conservation bodies via their open data download portals, and are assumed to be correct. In terms of fishing restrictions, he stated that they have not found any plotting errors, nor have Kingfisher provided an audit of byelaw spatial entities. He noted they are now close to completing data collection from the devolved administrations and are progressing to the jurisdictions managed by the IFCAs. He emphasised that Seafish regard data quality as the most crucial element of this project and, although it is not feasible for this project to undertake quality checks of all spatial data, they have spent many hours viewing and scrutinising the data.
Tom Rossiter - Sales Lead, SafetyNet Technologies Ltd
Tom Rossiter spoke about Pisces, an underwater light technology that helps avoid bycatch, and Enki, an innovative sensor that gives fishermen precise information about the underwater environment.
Who owns the data that is collected by the fishermen with devices like Enki?
Rossiter confirmed that the fishermen own the data, as they are the ones taking the risk and carrying the sensors. He explained that whilst fishermen own the data, the key is to incentivise fishermen to share their data for common good.
Are the Enki sensors readily available yet? Is the data downloaded able to communicate with other, existing data hubs on boats?
Rossiter stated that Enki is currently at prototype phase, and a number of trials are planned for 2021. He explained that in the short term, data will be recovered once the gear and sensor are removed from the water, and then transferred to an app-based product. He stated that the team is looking at ways of integrating data hubs across boats, but that at this stage, Enki works in isolation.
Could this technology be used without attachment to fishing gear, for example by research vessels conducting surveys in no-take fishery areas or gathering seabed data?
Rossiter said yes, and that there is a growing movement in the USA around “fishing for data” as a legitimate, alternative enterprise to fishing for fish. Whilst there is a great opportunity in this area, Tom stressed that the question remains as to who will pay for these activities, given the society-wide benefits.
The fishing industry is working to reduce marine pollution from lost gear, but the nature of the environment means it's hard to eliminate. What role can technology play in supporting costly recovery and recycling of marine pollution?
Rossiter answered that there are opportunities for technology to assist in this, such as systems that help fishermen to collect litter from the sea. He explained that there are still significant risks around the loss of fishing gear, and that a number of ongoing projects are developing technologies to locate gear - for example, low-cost, acoustic net tags, which can be attached to gear, with a transducer and receiving station. He said that, whilst this technology isn’t available today, it is expected to be in the next couple of years.
Professor Paul Fernandes - Chair in Fisheries Science, University of Aberdeen
Paul Fernandes introduced SMARTRAWL, a technological project which aims to help trawlers fish more selectively through underwater cameras, artificial intelligence and an automated trawl gate.
How would the SMARTRAWL gate work if you are getting a steady flow of both size and undersize fish passing the camera at the same time? Likewise, with two different species - one target and one non-target - passing the camera at the same time?
Fernandes answered that this would depend on two aspects - firstly, the speed at which the gate can operate, and secondly, how well the AI system can differentiate between multiple fish in the same image. Paul explained that all trials conducted so far have indicated that mixtures of different sizes and species are quite rare, with masses of fish tending to be auto-correlated at same species and size. He added that the larger masses of fish are usually small fish - as they get older, they get less numerous - and in these cases, they all need to be released.
Given that bycatch is not the only issue coming from demersal trawl gears, any ideas for improvements to decrease abrasion of seabed for example?
Fernandes stated that unfortunately, SMARTRAWL doesn’t do everything. He provided alternative options for protecting seabeds - for example, in areas with sensitive seabed habitats, there are often schemes involving area closures; alternatively, in areas of the Southern Ocean, fishermen using demersal trawl have to use their gear slightly raised from the seabed. Paul also explained that, based on his experience using underwater cameras, the vast majority of the North Sea is sand and mud, and largely featureless, so abrasion due to trawling is not a huge issue.
Dr Robert Enever - Head of Science & Uptake, Fishtek Marine Ltd
Robert Enever spoke about the benefits of pingers to prevent cetacean bycatch, and the importance of collaboration between fishermen, policy makers and technologists.
If there is no obligation to report bycatch in this pinger pool approach, how will we know if the pingers are having the desired effect and are being used properly?
Enever answered that, if you limit the numbers and scope to Devon and Cornwall, with a set number of pingers, then the risk is very low. He stressed that following 25 years of research, it is known that these pingers work. Additionally, as the fishermen have clear incentives to eliminate bycatch, they are likely to use pingers properly, provided that good guidance is offered. Robert said that this is an opportunity for engagement, and if people can be engaged early on, where there is no obligation to report, then the process can be started early.
Given that pingers have been proven to work and are mandatory on larger boats, who advised the MMO to reject pingers for smaller vessels on the basis of causing disturbance to wildlife?
Enever said that the situation is quite unclear. He said that the original evidence that came from Natural England was in support of the application, but when the application went to the MMO, the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) also supplied evidence, and the MMO rejected the application on this basis. Robert said he has since challenged the evidence from SMRU, to which they haven’t replied.
How do we encourage the MMO to agree to an exemption to the license, as currently required for use of pingers due to their supposed potential for disturbance, so that pingers can be used in specific areas where there is a reported bycatch issue?
Enever said that since the MMO responded to the initial application in 2018, new evidence has become available from the University of Exeter. He said that with that information, and the ICES advice that has come in around Baltic harbour porpoise, if SNCBs (statutory nature conservancy bodies) such as Natural England, the JNCC, and IFCAs - who have a management responsibility toward MPAs and protected species - put in a request to the MMO, exemption could possibly be gained.
Dr Mark James - Operations Director, MASTS
Mark James spoke on the recently concluded Scottish Inshore Fisheries Integrated Data System (SIFIDS) project, which has developed low-cost open source systems and processes to collect a range of data from inshore fishing vessels, supporting co-management and stock assessment with industry input.
What data agreements did you have to put in place to use the fishermen's data?
James explained that the project is based on an agreement with the fishermen involved, using an ethical consent form that has to be signed by fishermen to grant researchers access to the data for experimental purposes. Specifically, because this project is in association with Marine Scotland, there are named individuals within Marine Scotland who also have access to the data at an administrative level - the same level at which a fishery officer would be able to access it. Mark also confirmed that the fishermen can, of course, access their own data.
How accurate was the laser system? This could be particularly useful and efficient for use in processors.
James answered that the laser system works at sub-millimetre level.
David Stevens - Chairperson, Fishing into the Future; Skipper, Crystal Sea SS118
David spoke about the importance of industry-led data collection and collaborative approaches to fisheries management and monitoring, such as through Fishing Into The Future.
Do you believe REM is a valuable tool that is ready to be rolled out across all fisheries, and if not, what needs to change for it to be accepted for wider use.
Stevens answered that REM equipment is a very valuable tool and one he believed the UK should roll out, mainly because of its data gathering capabilities and the amount of coverage it can deliver. He added that since cameras can deliver in real time, data can be gathered and analysed quickly to solve stock issues or responsively alter management measures. He emphasised that policy needs to be more reflective of the needs of the fishing industry and fully transparent for effective cooperation to take place, and for REM to be used to accelerate the rate at which management decisions are made.