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 International Pacific

Halibut Commission

International Pacific

Halibut Commission

Interagency Electronic Reporting System

IERS“eLandings”

NMFS Restricted Access Management

NMFS Sustainable Fisheries

ADF&GCommercial

Fisheries Division

International Pacific Halibut

Commission

Catch and Production

Reporting by Industry

InteragencyRepository database

Interagency Electronic Reporting SystemeLandings

eLandings Web-based reporting of landings & production

seaLandings and eLogbook Desktop reporting on vessels submitted via email

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

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 - 2005• IFQ Halibut and Sablefish – 2006• Other groundfish - 2007• Salmon - 2011

Landing report submissions 2005-2015

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 email:Catch & production reportsIn-season management

ADF&G IPHC

Paper fish tickets

Other: In-season ManagementLogbook programs, etc.

NMFS – RAM

Web based reporting:IFQ and CDQTransfersCOOPs

“The old days” (pre-eLandings)

eLandings Reporting Procedures

IndustryLandings data entered into eLanding

Database

Quota debits/business rules/data validation/calculations/observer

fees/grading pricing/product quality documentation

AgenciesData review by agencies/edits applied within

eLandingsData pulled into individual agency databases of

record Industry

Industry generates reports from eLandings databaseUsing data interface web services, industry pulls data

into their business applicationsIndustry 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 fisheriesDevelopment of tLandings – extensive

implementation costsCOAR development

906 K

Total development costs for all application features

2.01 M+ substantial amounts of staff time

2015 operational budgetNon-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

EquipmenteLandings Web – minimal

seaLandings – minimal

tLandings – $1.2k per vessel

Staff trainingExtensive and ongoingStaff time = $

Staff skill levelReporting more complexIncreased computer skillsIncreased need to understand reporting requirements

Extended reporting timeApplication 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….

BenefitsData Entry

Reduction in data entry > 50% to date

Reduction in printing and distribution of forms

Reporting redundanciesSingle unified data set

Improved data sharing

CommunicationsReported 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

BenefitsData Access Agencies

Consolidated groundfish data including halibut with logical links – fish tickets/logbooks

EnforcementDirect access to landings data

IndustryData continues to be available for review,

correction and extraction

COAR report generation

ConsultantsCoop 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.”

CommentsChallenges 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?