The presence of longliners that fish exclusively in the high seas at Majuro’s port is not unusual; approximately a dozen of them arrive each year to change some officers, pick up parts, and address various issues on board in the calmer waters of the lagoon. These vessels spend extended periods at sea, refuel from bunker vessels, unload their catch, and acquire bait and provisions by transshipping with carriers on the high seas beyond the national jurisdiction of Pacific Island countries. And I’ve written a lot about my take on the problems associated with the HS longline fishery.
All these visiting vessels undergo MIMRA’s Port State Measures system to ensure the legality of their visits, catches on board, and all actions taken since their last port of departure. Consequently, with the arrival of the Korean-flagged longliner, it became apparent that the vessel had spent 361 days at sea without returning to port, meaning that the entire crew had not been on land for almost a year.
This fact could be seen internationally, under the microscope of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Forced Labour Indicators (excessive overtime, restriction of movements, isolation), yet the crew had contracts, the passports were provided for immigration, and the boat and amenities were in good condition.
As the maximum number of consecutive days at sea is not legislated internationally or by the flag state, and the vessels are not submitted to licensing by coastal states, port authorities anywhere in the world cannot do anything.
This is a clear example of the challenges we face worldwide regarding crew labour rights (read this blog entry if interested: Labour Standards on Fishing Vessels: A Problem in Search of a Home?" )
And while in the WCPO, we lead the world in tuna fisheries' sustainability, management, and the quantification of IUU fishing. We only recently began addressing the key factor behind the existence of a tuna fishery: its people.
As fuel costs rise, fishing expenses also increase, which is rarely reflected in fish prices. Consequently, some vessel owners and operators from richer Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFN) strive to remain competitive by flagging fishing vessels to low-cost registries, cutting operating costs, primarily by reducing spending on crew safety and living conditions, hiring low-wage crews from developing nations, and offering them less or none of the labour rights required in their own countries.
The legal and jurisdictional framework for addressing labour conditions on fishing vessels is clear and unambiguous. It centres on Articles 94(1) and 94(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the most internationally ratified legal instrument in the world.
These articles place responsibility on the flag state of a vessel for, among other things, ‘administrative, technical, and social matters’ onboard, ensuring safety at sea, as well as for ‘the manning of ships, labor conditions, and the training of crews, taking into account the applicable international instruments.'
Flag state responsibility is unequivocal, mainly since, from the outset, UNCLOS is a “package deal”, and there would have been no agreement on individual elements without overall agreement on the package as a whole. So, it is not legitimate to pick and choose different parts depending on the circumstances. Therefore, and as an example, if a state is committed to applying its rights over other nations fishing its EEZ, it must equally live up to its flag state responsibilities over the labour conditions on board the vessels it flags.
Why is this important? Potential labour rights abuses are more challenging to address when there is no natural and legally strong link between the crew's nationals, institutions in the vessel's state flag, and the powers of authorities where those vessels operate or come to port. Furthermore, labour issues on board are generally not linked to the powers of fisheries authorities.
As such, the issue poses real challenges for the international community. While there are legal instruments to address the problem (e.g., ILO C188 Work in Fishing Convention, 2007), they are insufficiently certified. When coupled with the inadequate enforcement of those rules that exist, particularly when involving jurisdictional issues, the ability of states to take effective action is impeded.
Yet, besides these problems, our region has taken groundbreaking steps. The Pacific Islands Fisheries Forum Agency's (FFA) Harmonised Minimum Terms and Conditions of Access (HMTCs), which apply to foreign and domestic vessels licensed to fish in the waters of the 15 independent Pacific Island countries since 2020, include employment and labour standards for fishing vessel crews.
The HTMCs hold the vessel operator accountable for the health, welfare, and safety of the crew on board the ship. Additionally, they mandate a written employment contract, fair and consistent remuneration, and repatriation, among other requirements.
No other region globally has linked labour rights with the right to fish as FFA has; therefore, this policy is unique and a worldwide example.
However, implementation of the HMTCs has been variable and slow, partly due to the COVID lockouts. Only four FFA members (Tokelau, Tuvalu, PNG, and Palau) have implemented these provisions through regulations or license conditions.
Part of the complexity is that, while initiated by fisheries licensing, fisheries administrations cannot implement labour standards alone and require close collaborations with other line agencies, particularly with labour and immigration.
Last December, the WCPFC adopted a conservation and management measure (CMM) on labour standards for fishing vessel crews. This CMM applies within the WCPFC Convention Area to vessels fishing on the high seas, in coastal State EEZs, and the EEZs of two or more coastal states, but it will only be required from 2028 onwards.
The negotiations for the CMM provisions extended over four years, and fishers and labour experts were not adequately represented. The FFA HMTCs had to be diluted to achieve a consensus among the entire membership, resulting in minimal detail. In particular, it remains unclear why the employment contract provisions are voluntary. Furthermore, there are enforcement issues that have yet to be addressed.
Finally, when considering labour conditions in fisheries, we must remember that this is not merely a job others do; it reflects our values as an industry and, ultimately, as a society. With this in mind, it should not be surprising to see a significant decline in the number of people wanting to work in the fishing industry in many Pacific Island countries, as its standards are clearly below those of other sectors.
PS: And don’t get me wrong with this blog. In no way or form am I asking you to take pity on fellow fishermen… all the opposite! These are some of the most resourceful, resilient, generous and optimistic people I have ever known. Chances are they wouldn’t be alive otherwise. They don’t need or want your pity; they need your respect, fair rules and equal payment opportunities.