This is an interesting paper, I have corresponded with two of the authors; Elizabeth Selig and Jessica Decker Sparks, and I’m always impress with how “on the ball” they are.
The paper is here, and as always I recommend you read the original
I just comment on a couple of things I liked in particular.
One is the identification of the two operating assumptions in which the effective enforcement of C188 rests on. The first is that its inspecting-competent agencies have the knowledge to inspect vessels to the correct standards. Given C188 standardises baselevel working conditions, the Convention helps to streamline the knowledge of enforcement agencies. The second is that enforcement agencies have operational capacity in each port to coordinate effective multi-agency enforcement. Given ports and the agencies within them vary greatly, this is not always the case. To this end, C188′s enforcement is often undermined by practical challenges of agency capacity and reach into ports, which constructs an environment where fishers are ostensibly well-regulated by standards which in practice are often poorly enforced.
And I agree with this assessment overall even since the paper if focuses on ports, and the examples in developed countries… yet for us in this part of the world the situation of a bit different. Our ports are in developing countries with limited resources and the vessels that come are flagged mostly in developed countries, and what happens on board is ultimately the responsibility of the flag state.
Is easier when the flag state has signed (or not C188) and the vessels come to their own ports and stuff happens there… I read the news on labour abuses happening in vessels flagged to rich western countries operating in their own waters and own ports! And always think if happens there with all the resources they have, why do people act surprised when it happens in places where none of those conditions exists (i.e. HS with crew without migratory status on the state that flag that vessel)…
One of the issues that many developing port states have in signing big treaties (like ILO C188 of PSMA) is that the basically they will be taking on board (with a very limited set of resources) the responsibilities to control the failures of the much richer Flag states or those of FoC where citizens of developed countries use to flags their vessels and then blame the FoC for the failures or as it often happens, treat to move their vessel to another FoC if they raise the standards
I also like how they identify the complex model of multi-factored interactivity of the structural, legal and regulatory, and local determinants of a port.
Fisher Labour Abuse Port-Based Resilience Framework. This model identifies and structures reflection on the multi-factored interactivity of the structural, legal and regulatory, and local determinants of a port. These all shape a fisher’s resilience or vulnerability to labour abuse, and effect policy enforcement variability port-to-port. Source: Authors, Source: Authors, adapted from Gardner et al., 2020.
Their proposed framework of port-based resilience is by no means exhaustive, but rather indicative, and is an attempt to reflect upon the many factors which pertain to fisher labour abuse and ports, to structure thinking around their dynamism and how they might interrelate and shape port resilience and vulnerability.
They recognise also that:
Perhaps most importantly, the framework’s greatest contribution is in its centralisation of fisher voice. This marks an important innovation to previous models of social determinants of community resilience against labour exploitation. This not only strengthens and validates the diagnostic capacity of the framework, but reaffirms the importance of fisher experiences and voice within it, as within any place-based port analyses of their exploitation. In centralising the marginalised voices of fishers, and harnessing their too often ignored expertise, the framework provides an opportunity for port stakeholders to operationalise a real commitment to fisher inclusion, recognising their crucial role in enforcement improvement, by bettering any resolutions to fisher labour exploitation, with actionable, practical and fisher-centred insight from those who live it.
With all these factors it seems hard already for ports in rich colonial countries like the UK to do it, so imagine what it would be for a small pacific island country… and even so…they are giving it a go! As I reported here