Vessel monitoring system
A vessel monitoring system (VMS) is a satellite-based tracking technology installed on commercial fishing vessels that automatically reports the vessel's geographic position, speed, and heading—typically determined via GPS—at programmable intervals to national fisheries authorities or regional monitoring centers, enabling real-time surveillance for regulatory compliance and resource management.[1][2] Emerging from satellite communication advancements in the late 1980s, with early trials in jurisdictions like Taiwan, VMS gained international traction through European Union regulations in 1998 and subsequent mandates by most Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), which require licensed vessels to transmit data via systems like Inmarsat-C to deter illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and enforce measures such as area closures and catch limits.[3][4][5] Core components include an onboard mobile transceiver unit that polls position data from shore-based control centers, supporting empirical verification of vessel activities against logbooks and aiding causal links between fishing effort and stock depletion through aggregated movement patterns.[6][7] Though VMS has empirically reduced undetected overfishing in monitored fleets by facilitating targeted inspections and quota adherence, persistent issues like deliberate signal disabling, inconsistent polling frequencies across RFMOs, and limited adoption in artisanal fisheries underscore gaps in universal enforcement, prompting calls for integrated electronic monitoring hybrids.[8][9][7]History and Development
Origins in the 1990s
Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) originated in response to the expansion of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which necessitated improved monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) of fishing activities to enforce quotas, prevent illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and manage depleting stocks.[6] In the early 1990s, advances in satellite communications and global positioning system (GPS) technology enabled automated tracking, shifting from manual radio reports to real-time position polling via systems like Inmarsat-C.[6] Fisheries managers began trials to address enforcement challenges in remote waters, with initial focuses on large commercial vessels in distant-water fisheries.[10] Early implementations included a 1989 trial in Taiwan, testing VMS on distant-water fleets amid global regulatory tightening, though full-scale adoption followed in the 1990s.[3] In 1993, Australia and New Zealand deployed national VMS to monitor large trawlers and foreign operations within their EEZs, marking some of the first operational systems for domestic enforcement.[6] The European Communities launched a tracking project in the early 1990s, with Denmark proposing a standardized "two-letter coding" format for efficient data transmission; this evolved into pilot schemes, including experiments in Portugal in 1995 and broader EU pilots in 1997 targeting vessels over 24 meters.[11][6] In the United States, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council pioneered VMS application for fishing vessels in the early 1990s, followed by a mid-1990s pilot in the Hawaiian pelagic longline fleet under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, covering about 100 vessels to test compliance and reduce IUU risks.[12][13] These origins emphasized satellite-based polling at intervals (e.g., every 1-2 hours) to transmit vessel identity, position, speed, and course to shore-based centers, initially for flag state oversight and coastal state verification of EEZ entries.[6] By the late 1990s, such as with Iceland's 1996 computerized system and U.S. mandates for East Coast scallop vessels in May 1998, VMS demonstrated utility in court cases like the F.V. Independence prosecution, validating its role in evidence collection.[14][13] Initial systems prioritized reliability over cost, using mobile earth stations to mitigate false alerts from earlier manual methods, laying groundwork for global standardization.[6]Initial Adoption and Regulatory Milestones
The initial adoption of vessel monitoring systems (VMS) in commercial fisheries began with experimental pilots in the United States during the mid-1990s, with the Hawaiian pelagic longline fleet representing the first domestic implementation to enable real-time tracking of vessel positions via satellite.[13] This was followed by the first U.S. regulatory mandate in May 1998, requiring VMS installation on scallop vessels fishing along the eastern seaboard to enforce closed areas and deter overfishing.[13] Concurrently, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, now NOAA Fisheries) expanded VMS deployment that year to monitor broader commercial operations, integrating it into enforcement under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.[15] In the European Union, the first regulatory milestone arrived on June 30, 1998, when Council Regulation (EC) No 284/97 mandated VMS for all Community fishing vessels over 20 meters in length, aiming to enhance compliance with total allowable catches and prevent illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing across member states' waters. This phased approach continued with a second implementation stage extending requirements to vessels between 15 and 20 meters by 2000, broadening coverage to approximately 8,000 vessels and establishing VMS as a cornerstone of the EU's common fisheries policy. Subsequent U.S. expansions in the late 1990s and early 2000s applied VMS to additional fisheries, such as highly migratory species, while international bodies like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) began endorsing VMS in guidelines against IUU fishing by 2001, influencing global adoption in regions like the Pacific and Indian Oceans.[15]Evolution into Modern Systems
In the early 2000s, regulatory frameworks expanded VMS mandates beyond initial regional pilots, mandating installation on larger commercial fishing vessels to enforce compliance with exclusive economic zones and closed areas. The European Union established detailed satellite-based VMS requirements in 2003, stipulating automatic position transmissions at intervals not exceeding two hours for vessels over 15 meters in community waters, building on 1998 enforcement legislation.[16] [4] In the United States, the National Marine Fisheries Service formalized a national VMS program in 2004 under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, initially targeting high-seas and protected species fisheries, which by 2023 monitored over 4,000 vessels continuously.[17] [18] These milestones shifted VMS from voluntary or experimental use to legally binding tools, with regional fisheries management organizations increasingly requiring data sharing for transboundary enforcement. Technological refinements addressed limitations of early systems, which relied on polled satellite pings via Inmarsat or similar networks with gaps in coverage and tamper risks. Post-2000 upgrades enabled hourly position reporting—mandatory in U.S. Gulf of Mexico reef fish fisheries since 2007—and improved redundancy through dual-mode units combining satellite and cellular transmission, approved by NOAA in recent standards updates.[19] [20] Integration with Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders, required under SOLAS conventions for vessels over 300 gross tons since 2004, supplemented VMS by providing near-real-time broadcasts detectable by satellites and nearby receivers, enhancing spatial resolution for fleet behavior analysis.[21] Contemporary VMS architectures incorporate electronic reporting (ER) for catch logs and electronic monitoring (EM) via onboard cameras, gear sensors, and weigh scales, deployed on approximately 1,000 vessels globally by 2018 as hybrids with traditional positioning.[22] [23] The EU's 2024 fisheries control regulation overhaul further embeds these in a risk-based framework, mandating EM for high-risk activities and leveraging VMS data for predictive enforcement.[24] Advances in satellite constellations, including synthetic aperture radar (SAR) for vessel detection independent of onboard transmitters, complement VMS by filling data voids in remote areas, as demonstrated in global mapping efforts since 2016.[25] Data processing has evolved from manual review to algorithmic scrutiny, with artificial intelligence applied post-2010s to VMS trajectories for anomaly detection, such as unusual speeds or route deviations indicative of unreported fishing.[26] FAO guidelines from 2003 onward standardized interoperability across 50+ flag states, facilitating cross-border verification and reducing illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing by enabling real-time alerts to patrol assets.[27] Despite these gains, modern systems retain vulnerabilities like signal jamming, prompting ongoing shifts toward multi-source fusion with AIS and remote sensing for robust causal inference in resource depletion models.[28]Technical Components and Functionality
Onboard Hardware and Software
The onboard hardware for vessel monitoring systems (VMS) primarily consists of a mobile transmitting unit (MTU) or transceiver installed on the vessel, integrating a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver to determine location, speed, and course, along with a satellite communication module for transmitting data to shore-based centers.[29] These units must operate automatically, reporting positions at intervals of no less than once per hour, with capabilities for on-demand polling from monitoring centers, and are required to function in harsh marine environments, including resistance to vibration, temperature extremes, and saltwater exposure.[29][30] Antennas for GPS and satellite links, along with a stable power supply—often including backup batteries to ensure operation during main power failures—are essential components, with units designed to draw low power (typically under 10 watts during transmission) to minimize vessel energy demands.[31] Tamper-proof features, such as seals, motion sensors, and alerts for unauthorized access or disconnection, are mandated by regulations like those from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ensuring data integrity and preventing circumvention.[29] Common satellite protocols include Inmarsat-C for geostationary coverage or Iridium for global polar-orbiting access, with type-approval required to meet standards for accuracy (within 100 meters) and reliability (99% uptime).[31][30] Accompanying software, embedded as firmware in the MTU, handles GPS data polling, encryption of transmissions using protocols like AES-256 to protect against interception, and formatting of reports including vessel identification, timestamp, and operational status.[29] Configuration interfaces allow authorized users to set reporting frequencies, integrate with electronic catch reporting systems, and perform diagnostics, while compliance with international standards from bodies like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) ensures interoperability and automatic activation upon vessel movement.[32] In some systems, additional software modules enable integration with vessel sensors for monitoring engine hours or gear deployment, though core functionality remains focused on positional tracking to support regulatory enforcement.[29]Communication and Satellite Technologies
Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) transmit vessel position, speed, course, and identification data via satellite links to enable tracking in remote maritime areas beyond cellular coverage. Onboard transponders integrate GPS receivers with satellite modems to acquire location data and relay it through polling requests from shore-based monitoring centers or in automatic reporting modes, with transmission intervals typically ranging from 1 to 6 hours depending on regulatory requirements.[18][6] Data packets are encrypted and formatted to include timestamps for verification, ensuring transmission integrity even in adverse conditions like high seas or poor weather.[33] Primary satellite technologies include Inmarsat-C, a geostationary system providing two-way communication via land earth stations (LES) that forward data to fisheries authorities. Inmarsat-C units, such as the Thrane & Thrane Sailor TT-3026D approved for U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) operations, support email and forms alongside position polling for near-real-time updates.[33] Iridium's low-Earth orbit (LEO) network, utilizing short burst data (SBD) for low-bandwidth transmissions, offers global pole-to-pole coverage, as in CLS America Thorium VMS units certified for NMFS use, which integrate GPS with Iridium SBD for hybrid GPRS fallback in coastal zones.[33][34] Orbcomm's LEO constellation enables IoT-focused vessel tracking with devices like the Stellar ST2500-G, approved for NMFS compliance, emphasizing cost-effective, automated reporting for fleet management.[33] These systems relay signals to ground stations, which process and distribute data to national or regional centers, such as those operated by the European Union or Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, where Inmarsat and Iridium predominate for international fisheries enforcement.[6] Hybrid configurations combining satellite with GSM/GPRS reduce costs near shore but default to satellite for open-ocean reliability, with power consumption minimized through duty-cycled transmissions.[33]Data Reception and Processing Centers
Data from vessel monitoring systems (VMS) is transmitted automatically from onboard transceivers via satellite networks, such as Inmarsat or Iridium, to ground receiving stations operated by communication service providers. These stations relay the encrypted position reports—typically including latitude, longitude, speed, course, and timestamp—every 1 to 2 hours, or more frequently during active fishing, to designated fisheries monitoring centers (FMCs) maintained by national authorities.[35][16] The data flow ensures secure, tamper-evident delivery, with transmissions polled by control centers to verify compliance without vessel operator intervention.[36] Upon reception, FMCs decrypt and validate incoming signals against predefined rules, such as geographic boundaries for closed areas or quota zones, generating automated alerts for potential violations like unauthorized entry into protected waters. Processing involves real-time analysis using specialized software platforms, such as THEMIS, which integrates VMS tracks with vessel registries, logbooks, and environmental data to support enforcement decisions and stock assessments.[37] In the United States, NOAA Fisheries' Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) oversees this through regional teams; for instance, the Northeast Vessel Monitoring System Team, based in the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, handles data for vessels in the U.S. Northeast, enabling rapid response to anomalies like gear conflicts or illegal activity.[38] Similarly, in the European Union, each member state's FMC receives flag-state data, coordinated via the European Fisheries Control Agency for cross-border oversight, as established under Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.[16] These centers maintain historical archives for forensic analysis, contributing to empirical evaluations of fishing patterns; for example, aggregated VMS data has revealed spatiotemporal distributions of effort in U.S. fisheries, aiding habitat impact models.[39] However, processing relies on vendor-specific protocols, which can introduce delays or compatibility issues across international fleets, though standards like those from the International Maritime Organization mitigate interoperability risks.[40] Access is restricted to authorized personnel to prevent misuse, ensuring data supports causal inferences on compliance rather than public dissemination.[41]Primary Applications
Fisheries Monitoring and Resource Management
Vessel monitoring systems enable fisheries authorities to track the real-time positions of commercial fishing vessels via satellite-transmitted GPS data, facilitating enforcement of regulations including closed areas, seasonal bans, and quota limits. In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requires VMS units on vessels operating in the Exclusive Economic Zone to monitor compliance with federal fishery management plans and prevent unauthorized fishing.[18] Similarly, the European Union's Common Fisheries Policy mandates VMS for vessels over 15 meters to collect location data every two hours, supporting regional surveillance and catch verification.[42] Beyond enforcement, VMS contributes to resource management by generating datasets for fishing effort distribution and stock assessments. Positional records help validate self-reported logbooks against actual vessel paths, improving accuracy in estimating harvest rates and biomass trends; for example, VMS data has been used to corroborate vessel trip reports in groundfish fisheries, reducing discrepancies in reported fishing locations.[43] In Australia's Queensland East Coast trawl fishery, integration of VMS with electronic logbooks enabled refined effort mapping and stock modeling, aiding quota setting.[44] The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) endorses centralized VMS for regional bodies like the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean to support evidence-based stock evaluations.[45] Empirical studies indicate VMS reduces illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing through deterrence and detection, though effectiveness varies by implementation. A 2021 study in the South China Sea documented VMS monitoring as instrumental in curbing unauthorized vessel incursions.[46] In Vietnam's Ca Mau province, 99.5% vessel equipping with VMS by 2023 enhanced oversight and compliance rates.[47] Public sharing of VMS data, as in Chile, further discourages IUU by increasing transparency and accountability.[48] However, analyses caution that VMS alone insufficiently deters sophisticated evasion without complementary measures like inspections.[49]Maritime Safety and Navigation
Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) enhance maritime safety by providing authorities with real-time satellite-based tracking of vessel positions, speeds, and courses, enabling rapid detection of anomalies such as deviations from planned routes or unexpected stops that could indicate distress or navigational hazards.[50] This capability supports coast guards and fisheries monitoring centers in maintaining situational awareness, particularly for fishing and commercial vessels operating in remote or high-traffic oceanic areas where traditional radar or VHF-based systems like AIS have limited coverage.[2] For instance, VMS data transmission occurs at intervals as frequent as hourly via GPS, allowing for proactive interventions to prevent groundings, collisions, or environmental incidents in regulated zones.[2] [51] In search and rescue (SAR) operations, VMS plays a critical role by furnishing the last known position of vessels, which facilitates targeted responses and reduces the scope of search areas, thereby minimizing response times and unnecessary deployments.[52] National systems, such as Canada's National Vessel Monitoring System implemented by November 2023, leverage VMS to track overdue vessels, directly contributing to conservation efforts alongside safety by averting prolonged SAR missions.[52] Similarly, in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) regulatory area, VMS data is explicitly authorized for SAR and general maritime safety, integrating with joint inspection schemes to locate vessels during emergencies.[2] Empirical assessments, including a 2023 study in Vietnam's Ca Mau province, indicate that VMS supports emergency rescues effectively, with 73.4% of surveyed users reporting its utility in such scenarios despite occasional technical limitations.[47] For navigation, VMS complements vessel traffic services (VTS) by offering persistent monitoring beyond coastal limits, aiding in route optimization and compliance with speed restrictions or exclusion zones to mitigate risks like allisions with offshore structures.[50] This is particularly beneficial for fleets in international waters, where VMS enables authorities to enforce safety protocols, such as those under regional fisheries management organizations, thereby indirectly reducing collision probabilities through enforced adherence to navigational best practices.[51] While primarily designed for fisheries compliance, its integration with distress signaling—via integrated SOS buttons or alerts for storms—further bolsters overall maritime domain awareness and hazard mitigation.[53]Law Enforcement and Anti-Piracy Efforts
Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) enable fisheries enforcement agencies to track vessel positions in real time, facilitating the detection of regulatory violations such as unauthorized entry into closed areas or excessive fishing durations. In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) utilizes VMS data to monitor commercial fishing vessels within the Exclusive Economic Zone, allowing law enforcement to prioritize patrols based on positional alerts and historical patterns, thereby preventing illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.[18] VMS transmissions, typically polled every 1-4 hours depending on jurisdiction, provide geographic coordinates accurate to within 300 meters in tested systems, supporting evidence-based inspections and reducing reliance on resource-intensive at-sea surveillance.[13] A landmark application occurred in the prosecution of the fishing vessel F.V. Independence for incursions into Closed Area II of the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean on December 8 and 11, 1998. VMS records from the BOATRACS/QUALCOMM system documented over 40 violations, corroborated by Coast Guard radar and eyewitness testimony, with the court deeming the data 95% reliable; this led to a $250,000 civil penalty, permit revocation for the owner and master, and affirmation by the NOAA Administrator in July 2003.[13] Similar enforcement successes have been reported in regions like Vietnam's Ca Mau province, where VMS implementation since the early 2010s has enhanced compliance monitoring for over 1,000 vessels, correlating with decreased unauthorized activities through automated alerts and integrated data analysis.[47] In anti-piracy contexts, VMS contributes to maritime domain awareness by identifying anomalous movements of fishing vessels, which are frequent targets or opportunistic platforms for pirate operations in areas like the Gulf of Guinea. Maritime authorities leverage VMS positional data alongside other tracking systems to detect suspicious behaviors, such as loitering near shipping lanes or deviations from declared routes, aiding coordinated responses; for instance, integrated vessel surveillance has supported interventions against piracy-linked activities since the mid-2010s.[21] However, VMS's primary fisheries focus limits its standalone role in broader anti-piracy efforts, which more commonly rely on Automatic Identification System (AIS) for non-fishing traffic, though hybrid applications have proven effective in flagging risks in high-threat zones.[54]Empirical Effectiveness and Causal Impacts
Evidence of Reduced Illegal Fishing
Implementation of vessel monitoring systems (VMS) has contributed to reductions in illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing in multiple jurisdictions by enabling real-time tracking, risk-based patrols, and enforcement actions that deter violations. In the United States, NOAA Fisheries' VMS program, mandatory for certain commercial vessels since the early 2000s, has supported over 1,000 enforcement cases annually in some years, correlating with high compliance rates in monitored fisheries where illegal activities like unauthorized gear use or area encroachments are detected and penalized promptly.[18] Similarly, in Indonesia, mandatory VMS installation on commercial fishing vessels as part of a 2014-2015 crackdown—coupled with vessel sinkings and license revocations—resulted in a sharp decline in foreign vessel incursions, with Global Fishing Watch analysis showing foreign fishing presence in Indonesian waters dropping from hundreds of vessels monthly pre-2015 to near zero by 2017, attributed partly to enhanced monitoring that exposed and expelled non-compliant operators.[55] Empirical studies further substantiate VMS's role in curbing IUU fishing through pattern analysis and compliance verification. Research in the South China Sea by Li et al. (2021) demonstrated VMS effectiveness in distinguishing legal Chinese light-fishing vessels from potential foreign IUU actors via movement and speed data, facilitating targeted interventions that reduced undetected incursions in monitored zones.[56] In the European Union, where VMS has been required since 2006 for vessels over 15 meters, integration with logbooks and satellite data has improved detection of unreported catches, with one analysis showing a 14% reduction in non-reported landings among tracked fleets through risk-scoring algorithms that prioritize high-risk vessels for inspection.[57] These outcomes rely on VMS data transmission rates and follow-up enforcement, as incomplete coverage or tampering can limit impacts, but where fully implemented, VMS has empirically lowered IUU incidence by raising the probability of apprehension.[58] In the Pacific Islands region, VMS data combined with observer reports quantified IUU fishing at around 43% of longline effort in unlicensed areas prior to intensified monitoring, but post-implementation adjustments led to license compliance improvements and reduced unauthorized days at sea, as evidenced by cross-verified vessel trajectories showing fewer violations after 2010 regional mandates.[59] Overall, while VMS alone does not eliminate IUU fishing—requiring complementary measures like aerial patrols and international cooperation—peer-reviewed assessments confirm its causal contribution to deterrence, with reductions in illegal effort tied directly to surveillance-enabled prosecutions and behavioral shifts among operators.[60]Economic and Environmental Outcomes
Implementation of vessel monitoring systems (VMS) has yielded measurable economic benefits in fisheries by curbing illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, which distorts markets and undermines legal operations. Globally, IUU fishing and associated inefficiencies contribute to annual losses estimated at $83 billion, including foregone revenue from depleted stocks and higher enforcement costs; VMS deployment facilitates deterrence and compliance, thereby recapturing portions of this value through improved resource allocation and reduced subsidies to illicit actors.[22] In specific cases, such as Hawaii's bigeye tuna longline fishery following VMS mandates in the early 2000s, vessel operators experienced fleet contraction by up to 50%, shorter trip durations, and lower operational costs per unit effort, as tracked positions enabled targeted enforcement and voluntary adjustments to avoid high-risk areas.[61] These efficiencies stem from VMS data informing quota adherence and spatial planning, though small-scale operators in developing regions face initial hardware costs averaging $1,000–$5,000 per vessel, offset over time by access to premium markets requiring verified sustainability.[19] Environmentally, VMS supports stock recovery by enforcing no-take zones and seasonal closures, reducing unauthorized incursions that exacerbate overexploitation. In the Mediterranean and Indo-Pacific, VMS integration with monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) frameworks has documented up to 33% of pre-enforcement effort occurring in protected biodiversity hotspots, with post-implementation shifts enabling biomass rebounds in enforced areas through lowered bycatch and habitat pressure.[49] For instance, Taiwan's VMS rollout since 2000 has deterred spatial-temporal illegal activities, correlating with stabilized tuna stocks via precise effort mapping that informs total allowable catches.[62] However, causal attribution remains partial, as VMS alone does not address ecological drivers like climate variability; empirical analyses indicate 20–40% drops in detected violations in VMS-mandated fleets, indirectly bolstering resilience by aligning harvest rates with maximum sustainable yields.[58] Long-term data from NOAA and ICES regions show VMS-enhanced models predicting effort reductions that align with observed upticks in spawning stock biomass, underscoring its role in causal chains from compliance to ecosystem health.[28]Quantitative Metrics from Studies
In Japan, strengthened monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) measures incorporating vessel monitoring systems (VMS) contributed to an approximately 80% decrease in arrests of fishers for poaching from 1996 to 2020.[63] This decline indicates effective deterrence of illegal activities, though arrests of non-fishing-right holders rose threefold over the same period, suggesting shifts in violation patterns.[63] In Indonesia, MCS initiatives including VMS enforcement achieved over a 90% reduction in fishing hours by foreign vessels, directly linking enhanced tracking to curtailed unauthorized operations.[63] In West Africa, MCS frameworks with VMS components reduced illegal fishing by 30% in select areas as documented in a 2017 assessment, demonstrating measurable impacts on compliance through real-time position reporting.[63] In Vietnam's Ca Mau province, VMS equipping reached 99.5% of targeted fishing vessels (1,518 out of 1,525) by December 2021, with 96.8% of surveyed fishermen rating the system effective for vessel management and monitoring.[47] However, reliability issues persisted, as 37.3% of ZuniVN-01 units (117 out of 314) suffered disconnections exceeding 10 days between January and April 2022, potentially undermining detection capabilities.[47]| Region/Study Area | Metric | Value | Time Period/Context | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | Reduction in poaching arrests | ~80% | 1996–2020; MCS including VMS | [63] |
| Indonesia | Reduction in foreign vessel fishing hours | >90% | MCS countermeasures with VMS | [63] |
| West Africa | Reduction in illegal fishing | 30% | 2017; Select areas via MCS/VMS | [63] |
| Vietnam (Ca Mau) | VMS equipping compliance | 99.5% | By Dec 2021; 1,518/1,525 vessels | [47] |
| Vietnam (Ca Mau) | Perceived effectiveness by fishermen | 96.8% | Survey of 94 respondents | [47] |