I have always been very open about my industry background; I’ll say that it has been fundamental to whatever I know about fishing. My academic career gave that experience a formal knowledge framework around fishing and sustaining fishing, while my work with the government and intergovernmental institutions gave me the regulatory, operational and legal framework in which fishing happens.
Corporate reach at WCPFC
I was a fisherman working in science, then a scientist working in industry and then a fisherman/scientist working in government. I was very fortunate to have had that opportunity, and I wish more people have the opportunity to spend time in each of these three realms.
As a ex-fisherman, I always believe that as industry is part of the problem, they have to be part of the solution; and now that as a government advisor, we cannot pretend to regulate what we don't understand.
Hence I was very happy to read this paper by some authors I know, Laurenne Schiller, Quentin Hanich and Megan Bailey (I think I still need to meet Graeme Auld): Increasing industry involvement in international tuna fishery negotiations.
The paper, for me, has two great takeaways: the 1st is that industry involvement in decision-making (at least in the WCPFC) is not inconsistent with good management and sustainability; in fact, one could argue it is necessary. The 2nd one is of personal interest, and is the analysis of the affiliations of the industry players and the very interesting graph that I chose to illustrate this blog entry; mainly since we talk a lot about the “domestication” of the industry when flagging to the Pacific Islands (PICs), yet these are not PICs companies… they are DWFN based companies that find economically and, in many cases, good political opportunities in flagging their vessels in PICs. The paper dully recognises that “Future work should investigate the detailed relationships between companies and countries we observed here, as the flags these companies use may lend deeper insight into the region’s complex corporate seascape”.
It is a good read with great graphs with the bonus advantage of explaining the delegations' works and the different participants' roles per delegation. As usual, read the original! I quote below the Science for society and Summary (I don't usually see those headers) and Conclusions!
Science for society
Tuna is a food staple for many families, and billions of cans are consumed annually. Most tuna comes from the Western Pacific where fishing companies pay to fish in island country waters. Ensuring the catch is sustainable is the collective responsibility of all countries, so governments meet annually to negotiate fishery quotas and restrictions. Little is known about how companies participate in these negotiations, although outcomes affect their businesses, and whether they abide by outcomes affects the long-term sustainability of tuna. By combining negotiation attendance lists and interviewing attendees, we found industry attendees now almost outnumber those from government, and 15 of 158 companies accounted for 41% of recent industry representation. While 70% of island delegations had foreign industry representatives, interviewees suggested current company involvement does not negatively affect negotiation decisions and may even help ensure sustainable tuna fisheries in this region.
Summary
The private sector can play a prominent role in global ocean governance. Yet, industry stakeholders are diverse, and how specific companies engage with policymakers remains poorly understood. Here, we focus on Western and Central Pacific tuna fisheries, which provide ∼60% of global tuna catch and a critical source of income for developing island states. We identified relationships between companies and governments in international fishery negotiations from 2005 to 2018. Relative industry attendance nearly doubled during this time, and 15 of 158 companies have dominated corporate representation since 2014. Further, industry members outnumbered government policymakers on half of the ten largest delegations, and 70% of island state delegations included foreign companies. Meeting attendees corroborated the influence of industry stakeholders, but this differed across countries. During our study period, management of tuna fisheries improved overall, suggesting that company involvement does not hinder sustainability outcomes and could play a supportive role when agendas are aligned.
Conclusions
Increasing industry involvement at WCPFC is happening during a time of strong regional leadership by island state governments and sustainable fishing effort, suggesting that industry influence is not interfering with, and may even be supporting sustainable fishing practices in this region. The nature of business interests (i.e., where they make profit) relative to the resource in question likely dictates the degree to which business and sustainability interests can be aligned.
In internationally managed fisheries, such alignment is partly driven by increasing drive to access sustainable seafood markets and suggests that industry involvement in international negotiations can be constructive when country and company objectives are aligned. Still, wellbeing and equity of local communities must be at the forefront of fisheries management decisions to ensure long-term benefits to both nature and people.
Thus, we suggest that the best way for the private sector to support sustainable fishery outcomes in this part of the world is by ensuring their engagement in negotiations does not undermine the sovereign rights of SIDS and their aspirations of ensuring the long-term tuna viability of tuna populations in the region.
