I have been asked a few times lately what happened with my work developing FAO’s draft guidelines on Social Responsibility in Fish Value Chains that were discussed at the FAO’s Committee of Fisheries – Subcommittee of Trade meeting in November last year in Vigo.
Sorry we still fail you!
I think is good for me to remind that I was contracted to develop draft guidelines for consideration, and I requested my friend and colleague Katrina Nakamura to be my co-developer on this, as some of the most novel ideas I hear on that topic come from her.
I wasn't in Vigo at the time because I was working Majuro and wrote this. But FAO just published the report on the meeting and their words on the topic are pasted below.
As I got to know a bit of what happened on the inside via some delegates and friends in Vigo I will comment further down on my frustrations on what happened. I just will mark in italics the areas I fill I should comment from the content point of view and some on my fears on what’s is going to happen with this fundamental topic.
From my perspective are 3 components to this work: content, process and politics… I just will discuss content and a bit of the politics, the process is FAO’s own and while I have heard comments on the capacity by countries to influence the process as to get to the guidelines, all that is way above my understanding so I leave for others to analyse. I’m totally partial to FAO, they changed my life for better more than once.
The section in the report says:
69. The Sub-Committee noted the work presented by the Secretariat in document COFI:FT/XVII/2019/13 and acknowledged the efforts of FAO for the broad and inclusive consultation process leading to its development.
70. The Sub-Committee recognized the importance of social responsibility in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, and noted that it is a wide-ranging topic. The Sub-Committee highlighted that this area of work is not within the core activities of FAO and requires close collaboration with other relevant specialised agencies, including ILO, IMO and OECD to be consistent with relevant existing conventions.
71. The Sub-Committee reiterated that any work in this area should be fisheries sector specific and technical. The Sub-Committee also called on FAO to ensure the language used reflects the voluntary nature of any guidance.
The Sub-Committee also stressed that results of this work should be non- binding, inclusive, practical and provide tangible guidance to assist fisheries sector actors in applying and implementing existing relevant instruments and guidelines, where appropriate, in support of social responsibility, and include a focus on trafficking in persons and forced labour practices on fishing vessels. The Sub-Committee reiterated that all stakeholders should continue to be engaged in the work of FAO.
72. In order to address these concerns, the Sub-Committee recommended the Secretariat develop a scoping paper to further contextualise the fisheries sector specific issues and to identify the potential role of FAO, in consultation with Members. The Sub-Committee requested the scoping paper provide a clear outline of the major challenges and identify the key stakeholders, including their roles, core competencies and mandates, and references to relevant existing international instruments and tools, as well as identification of other ongoing work and processes. The Sub-Committee requested the paper be provided to the next session of the Sub-Committee for guidance.
so here are my views
“this area of work is not within the core activities of FAO”
I heard that so many times “is not fisheries issue”… while I recognise that from the legal side there is an argument there… it is a fisheries issue! Every time there is news about the labour and human rights abuses on vessels… people don’t go: Ohh look how bad the labour authorities of the flag state are affecting the good name of the labour standards! They go look another are of shit performance by the fishing sector! So it occurs on fishing vessels and affects the public perception of fisheries, and in today’s world, public perception is very important are that is unwise to further ignore. So yes… I believe is part of FAO’s Fisheries mandate to assist the sector on navigating this complex area, without creating new requirements, but just researching and presenting the existing ones under the UN, ILO, IMO and OECD in way that easier to follow (which is exactly what we did).
“that any work in this area should be fisheries sector specific and technical”
We divided the guidelines in a core (common factor) requirements and then specific appendixes: Small-scale fishing, Industrial fishing, Aquaculture production, Processing, Distribution, Retailing… now how further specific can you get!!!
“called on FAO to ensure the language used reflects the voluntary nature of any guidance”
I quote here: Section 2: Nature and Scope. 2.1.This Guidance is voluntary in nature.
It was the 1st thing we said!!!! How else can we say it? Could you please, if you don't mind, and have the time, as I know you are busy, and you have to play golf with your friends… but… you know… just if have the time.. the exercise your responsibility under all these international agreements to promote human and labour rights, including decent work? Sure, I wait after you fishing your beer. And yeap… we hear already that you “stressed that results of this work should be non- binding”
The draft said in black and white that the guidance was a resource for voluntary use assisting this purpose. FAO is not a labour enforcement agency, but it can assist member countries to agree on targets and mechanisms. Here it was simply putting forward what is in the internationally negotiated and agreed instruments
“clear outline of the major challenges and identify the key stakeholders, including their roles, core competencies and mandates, and references to relevant existing international instruments and tools”
Which is exactly what we did!!! The guidance compiled the requirements already in force. FAO did not need to define anything. The anti-slavery / forced labour requirements, for example, are defined in conventions which are universally in force, whereas workplace minimums are defined domestically but linking to the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The guidance draft clarified these things and the different things that fish companies and governments are required to do, based on what already is legally in force.
But obviously some there don't want to see it….
Yet the excuse was the language… as NFI (US industry body) boss J. Connelly told SeafoodSource. "We were a bit surprised that the language had turned from voluntary to a lot of, in shorthand, ‘must, shall, will be obligated to, required’ ,". "It just concerns governments enough that they talked at moving it forward in its current form ... They expected it to be voluntary guidelines to these countries."
However, as I explained the draft guidance explicitly states in the first sentence of the section describing the nature and scope of the work, “This Guidance is voluntary in nature.” Later, it says, “Nothing in this Guidance prejudices the rights, jurisdiction, and duties of States under international law.”
So in reality, things are stalled… till next year
350 USD a month, 3 year contract
For me, the only reality is that guys like Salim in this article I recently wrote earn 350US a month on 3 years not going home contract while working in a US-flagged Purse Seiner in the WCPFO, yet if he was from a developing country he would earning 4-5 times that and it would be illegal not to repatriate him for holidays. (I was earning that for the same job over 20 years ago!)
Yet, these guys never make it to the meetings where their life is discussed… as Nasim Taleb said: “Those who talk should do and only those who do should talk.”
My fear is that all this will then fall into the hand of private certifications… which I would not have a problem if they were paid by consumer organizations. But as in the case of ecolabels are paid by producers, which are being the clients of the certification companies, are firstly in a conflict of interest, but what is worst, allow for the continuation of the problem since the flag states do not take on the responsibilities they should… at the end of a day, fishing boat is an extension of the territory of the state they are flagged, and therefore everyone on board should be under the labour regime and unions that applies to that country, which have to be equivalent to those we enumerate in the FAO guide.
Furthermore, and while at least is great that there is an interest in making sure that a deckhand rights around earning 350USD a month are protected, the systems do nothing to a situation one could argue strongly that it fits under the definition of exploitation of labour.
And if they don't… then they have to comply with coastal state conditions as we did with FFA MTCs, or being made public the consumer know who not to buy from.
Honestly if not to hard to find the standards already agreed and make them comply, there is plenty of information around that…
All this saga reminds me of something that and old colleague told me in one of the first trips fishing aged 18… “at the end of day fishing is a bit like a chicken pen… the chicken at the top shits on the one below… and below fishers is only water”
Finally, for me personally it is important that we don’t pity Salim and many other thousands like him in many jobs in the world. Pity the circumstances they live in, and shame the operators that exploit those circumstances.
People like Salim are some of the most resilient, positive, nicest, innovative and determined people I have ever met and worked with. Without these qualities, they wouldn’t be alive