Further from a blog from a couple o fweeks ago where i tranalated an article on “Desk Experts” by my colleage Captain Sergio Almada, the Coordinator of Argentina’s Interdisciplinary Working Group for the Control of Maritime Areas and their Resources that depends on the country’s “Prefectura – PNA” (Coast Guard), from which he retired as a senior officer of patrol and surveillance vessels.
I was asked by a colleague at Atuna, a well-known and respected subscription-based tuna news site, to produce a 500-word expert viewpoint based on my blog.
I like information to be free, otherwise it becomes a privilege for those who can afford it.. Yet I also understand that they need to make a living, so I find a middle ground by making my writing accessible for free. So here is the article, for whatever it is worth.
Fisheries Surveillance Requires Context, Not Merely Data
In recent years, platforms that collect vessel tracking data have become increasingly important for understanding tuna and other fishing activities at sea. Tools and dashboards based on the automatic identification system (AIS) offer more insights into ship movements than ever before. They can report suspected fishing, encounters, transhipment events, port arrivals, and even inferred effort.
While reliable, these technologies are not perfect and should not be the sole basis for policy or enforcement decisions
There is a clear trend in the tuna world of producing opinion-based news and even academic papers using AlS data, which primarily show where vessels go and when, with other data and opinions to 'sketch in' a fuller picture on numerous topics. These range from the activities of distant water fishing nations in the high seas, the impact of having ratified the Agreement on Port State Measures (PSMA) on port entries. to distance travelled and labor rights, to cite some examples
On top of this trend, there is a rise of what some call 'desk experts', which highlights the complexity of this issue. Well-meaning and motivated analysts, often lacking experience on a fishing vessel, interpret remote monitoring data without fully understanding how fishing operations work. They might see patterns in AIS data and quickly assume illegal activity. When such analyses are uncritically repeated - particularly on social media or in the non-specialist press - they can shape public perception of what actually occurs at sea.
The main issue stems from a misconception: that raw monitoring data can exist on its own. AIS transponders aim to prevent ship collisions and improve safety, not to enforce fisheries laws. AIS signals can have gaps, ambiguities, and biases, even for experienced analysts. For instance, a vessel staying near a fixed point might be weathering a storm rather than loitering. Ignoring weather conditions can lead to safe activities being misperceived as suspicious.
lt is also common to assume that two vessels meeting at sea automatically indicate a transhipment, but this is often incorrect. Such encounters might involve exchanging goods, food, crew, or spare parts. Determining the true context requires careful analysis of encounter duration, vessel equipment and type, weather conditions, and reported activities.
Overlooking these factors can lead to misreporting ·events· that are operationally legitimate.
Many analytical platforms use broad boundaries for exclusive economic zones (EEZs) that do not match official boundary lines. Sometimes datasets incorrectly identify jurisdictional borders, leading to the portrayal of lawful operations as illegal. For example, in the "Blue Hole" area, within the EEZs of Argentina and the Malvinas/Falkland Islands, boundary misalignments cause a coastal state's EEZ to extend into the high seas by several nautical miles - leading to ongoing misunderstandings about vessel activities.
This is not to downplay the importance of remote monitoring - quite the opposite. In the fight against IUU fishing, AIS-derived insights, satellite imagery and machine learning are essential tools. However, these tools need expert interpretation in context, field validation, cross-checking with the vessel monitoring system (VMS), and operational ground-truthing. Without this, we risk turning fishery surveillance into a game of digital illusions, where signals are mistaken for facts.
Ultimately, remote monitoring should be viewed as only one component of a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to fisheries management. We can utilise technology effectively, provided we base our data analysis on operational knowledge and verify findings with ground-truth sources.