eLandings ~ Cost and Benefits Analysis

Partnership involving 3 commercial fishery management agencies in Alaska: National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Department of Fish and Game International Pacific Halibut Commission Working with commercial fishing industry I nternational P acific H alibut C ommission I nternational P acific H alibut C ommission

NMFS Restricted Access Management NMFS Sustainable Fisheries ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Division International Pacific Halibut Commission Catch and Production Reporting by Industry Interagency Repository database Interagency Electronic Reporting System eLandings

eLandings Web-based reporting of landings & production seaLandings and eLogbook Desktop reporting on vessels submitted via Agency Desktop Agency staff review & edit submitted data eLandings Repository Database tLandings Reporting from tender vessels via USB drive Interagency Electronic Reporting Program Components System Interface Third-party software & web services interface with elandings directly

One-stop reporting of landings and production to multiple agencies – eliminate redundant reporting Increase timeliness and quality of fisheries data Provide immediate access to electronically submitted data to all management agencies and the industry Build QA/QC into system Meet the management needs & requirements of all 3 agencies Including, adhere to regulations & data confidentiality requirements Consider business constraints of fishing industry eLandings – Project goals

Accommodate remote areas with low bandwidth Allows access to agency staff who are spread across the state Provide trip-based information Provide documentation – both electronic and paper to accommodate needs of all agencies Accommodate conventional paper fish tickets (there is still some paper reporting)

eLandings Submitted Records IFQ BSAI Crab IFQ Halibut and Sablefish – 2006 Other groundfish Salmon Landing report submissions

Why do a Cost/Benefits Analysis: The 10 year anniversary of the implementation of eLanding – 500,000 reports eLandings in wide use within Alaska seafood industry Several original developers still involved with program Desire on the part of NOAA to move towards greater use of electronic reporting nationally Little cost documentation (development and maintenance) Validate assumptions regarding benefits of eReporting?

Why do a Cost/Benefits Analysis: Availability of FIS grant funds Questions from upper Mgt about transitions to electronic reporting Document costs and savings to justify current staffing and budget State will be requiring larger processors to use the tLandings system

Cost and Benefits Analysis Project Goals: Quantify the costs and benefits of moving from the legacy reporting system used by the three agencies to the IERS Determine the return on investments Provide other states and regions with valuable insights as they contemplate similar transition Project Challenges: No cost documentation on legacy systems Implementation of new reporting structures within the framework of eReporting transition Limited funds for analysis Little experience with cost and benefit analysis (CBA)

Industry User NMFS – Sustainable Fisheries By Catch & production reports In-season management ADF&G IPHC Paper fish tickets Other: In-season Management Logbook programs, etc. NMFS – RAM Web based reporting: IFQ and CDQ Transfers COOPs “The old days” (pre-eLandings)

eLandings Reporting Procedures Industry Landings data entered into eLanding Database Quota debits/business rules/data validation/calculations/observer fees/grading pricing/product quality documentation Agencies Data review by agencies/edits applied within eLandings Data pulled into individual agency databases of record Industry Industry generates reports from eLandings database Using data interface web services, industry pulls data into their business applications Industry generates annual economic data report

Cost and Benefit Study Joint project NMFS/ADF&G 48 k grant from FIS Data Quality Group Additional funds from NMFS – AK region Staff support from NMFS/ADF&G Consultant – Northern Economics & Darrell Brannan

Project Methodology: Case Studies with 11 stakeholder groups Analysis would be limited to the three core IERS applications eLandings Web seaLandings tLandings Development costs are estimated and in aggregate Annual costs are current (2015) and in aggregate Many interviews would be conducted by agency staff due to the Paper Work Reduction act limits End result – Analysis is primarily qualitative with a focus on implementation impacts determined by targeted interviews Case studies would be framed by original IERS project goals

Stakeholder Case Study Interview groups Agency groups NMFS IPHC ADFG Law Enforcement State of Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Alaska Fisheries Information Network North Pacific Fishery Management Council

Stakeholder Case Study Interview Groups Industry groups At-sea harvesters Shoreside processors – large Shoreside processors – small Shoreside processor - CDQ Tender operators Contractors with Industry

Agency Costs Development in two phases Phase I eReporting Scoping and design Application development IFQ Crab, halibut/sablefish & non-IFQ groundfish (Catch share with real time debit) 1.05 M

Agency Costs Development in two phases Phase II Additional scoping, design and development Salmon fisheries Development of tLandings – extensive implementation costs COAR development 906 K Total development costs for all application features 2.01 M + substantial amounts of staff time

2015 operational budget Non-Staff Costs Training and training materials Hardware/Infrastructure User support outside agency (IFQ) Technical training Staffing costs, including contractors Field support, training IT Program management System development and maintenance 2.6 M

Industry Costs Equipment eLandings Web – minimal seaLandings – minimal tLandings – $1.2k per vessel Staff training Extensive and ongoing Staff time = $ Staff skill level Reporting more complex Increased computer skills Increased need to understand reporting requirements Extended reporting time Application learning curve Data validation or business rule error resolution Perception of reporting time (paper vs computer)

Industry Costs “It is easy to write something on a fish ticket or a logbook, but typing/computer skills and responding to errors drive me nuts!” While agency staff may view computer data entry in the same light as paper base reporting, industry view this as passing the burden of data entry to them. On-going partnership with industry helps in developing electronic reporting programs that provide benefit to industry. Find the balance….

Benefits Data Entry Reduction in data entry > 50% to date Reduction in printing and distribution of forms Reporting redundancies Single unified data set Improved data sharing Communications Reported as improved Within agencies Between agencies Between agencies and data suppliers Within companies that have multiple plants or vessels that use the systems Individual companies to HQ staff

Benefits Data Timeliness Fishing cooperatives IFQ/IPQ Stocks of concern/bycatch/small quota fisheries Data Usefulness More timely data is more useful data Develop tools to better manage resources 24/7 notification of bycatch hot spots Catch/bycatch ratios Automation of fees, reports, COAR Data Quality Missing information, legibility, accurate calculations Data validation and business rules Data imported into industry business applications

Benefits Data Access Agencies Consolidated groundfish data including halibut with logical links – fish tickets/logbooks Enforcement Direct access to landings data Industry Data continues to be available for review, correction and extraction COAR report generation Consultants Coop and bycatch management Agile Data Collection Data collection flexibility

Cost and Benefits Key Conclusions Seafood industry view regulators as one entity – appreciate efforts to consolidate and standardize reporting. Seafood industry appreciate eReporting development partnership. Larger and more innovative industry partners experience greater benefits. Providing adequate training and user support is critical to the success of electronic reporting. eReporting can provide an agile platform to implement programs that allow efficiency gains to be realized by harvesters and processors, while providing the tools for agencies to better manage the resources under their authority.

Cost and Benefits Key Conclusions eReporting does save agencies some money – if printing, distribution, and data entry of fish tickets is a component of activities. IERS creates a structure and incentives for persons submitting the data to provide complete, accurate and legible data as industry imports data into their own business applications. Industry expect automated reports. Data quality is improved, but difficult to quantify cost savings. Extended jurisdiction staffs benefit from consolidated and standardized data. All program goals established in 2002 have been met.

“The IERS (eLandings) has been developed to meet many of the current reporting needs. It has been stressed by agency staff that many of the current management systems requested by stakeholders and implemented would not be possible without the IERS.”

Comments Challenges to state adoption of electronic reporting Extensive legacy data ( eg. California F&W – 1916) Broad geographic processor base IT constraints and standards differ – state to state Smaller vessels and businesses Political processes Questions?