Use technology to communicate near real-time catch information to fishers to enable avoidance of unwanted catchicate near real-time catch information to fishers to enable avoidance of unwanted catch

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study examined the effects of using technology to communicate near real-time catch information to fishers to enable avoidance of unwanted catch on marine fish populations. The study was in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans.






  • Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): A review in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans reported that where technology was used to provide near real-time catch information to fishers there were reductions of unwanted catch or discards in two of three cases.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A review in 2013 of three areas (bottom and midwater) in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans (O'Keefe et al. 2014) reported that programmes that used technology to provide near real-time catch information to fishers resulted in reduced unwanted catch or discards in two of three cases compared to no use of real-time technology. For fish, fleet communication programmes were evaluated as having reduced unwanted catch in two of three cases: of shads Alosinae in the USA Northwest Atlantic herring Clupea harengus and mackerel Scomber scombrus trawl fisheries; of halibut (up to 30%) in the Alaska pelagic longline fishery; but not of mixed species in the yellowfin sole Limanda aspera fishery in USA northwest Pacific region (data not reported, see paper for references to original studies). In addition, in all three cases it was assessed that there were no or minimal negative effects of fleet communication of catches on the catch of non- and commercially targeted species and no or minimal spatial or temporal displacement of unwanted catch, however, only one case was deemed as economically viable for the fishery. The review summarized peer-reviewed evaluations (see paper for details of original studies) of unwanted catch mitigation techniques, including using technology (e.g. satellite and transmitted observer data) to communicate fishing catches among participating vessels.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Taylor, N., Clarke, L.J., Alliji, K., Barrett, C., McIntyre, R., Smith, R.K., and Sutherland, W.J. (2021) Marine Fish Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Selected Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Marine Fish Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marine Fish Conservation
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 20

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered speciesVincet Wildlife Trust