Australia’s Perspectives on the Benefits of EM

As you may know, Electronic Monitoring – EM in fishing vessels is one of my (many) areas of interest. And while I have not yet commented about it, Australia has been on the EM road for a while now, and its approach is thorough and a good benchmark for others to follow. The person in charge is Claire van der Geest, General Manager of AFMA’s Digital Transformation and Electronic Monitoring section. I have been lucky to have been in some meetings with her, and we in the region are lucky to have her as the chair of the WCPFC EM Working group. She is excellent at managing meetings, and her technical understanding of EM is 1st class.

EM camera array. Picture by AFMA

On you can see that on the excellent articles she wrote for the good crew of Em4Fish and that I will un-shamefully echo here. The 1st one was back in April “Australia’s Standards Based Electronic Monitoring Program”, which is excellent reading. The 2nd one came on the 31st  July “Australia’s Perspectives on the Benefits of Electronic Monitoring”, and there is one more to come.

Of course, I recommend you read all of them from the links above, yet I will respectfully quote some of her words from the latest one that struck a chord for me and is written with a style and conciseness I can only dream about!

The original reference includes analysis and figures to show specifically the impact in terms of: At-sea monitoring, Logbook data accuracy, Protected species reporting, Management and Compliance, and Geolocation which is quite impressive.

EM is one of two at-sea monitoring tools, which, like observers, provide valuable independent validation of fishing activities, including validating logbook data.  Independent monitoring is an essential component of effective fisheries management and is critical for ensuring confidence in the science underpinning fisheries management decisions.  It provides accountability, transparency, and confidence that logbook data is comprehensive and complete.  It also ensures confidence in the management arrangements themselves by monitoring compliance with specific management measures.

AFMA’s EM program is built meeting the specific data needs and monitoring objective of each fishery.  Different EM data are collected during the review process, depending on the fishery and monitoring objectives under consideration. The footage analysis includes undertaking a full catch composition, in addition to discards, interactions with protected species and deployment of mitigation measures.  This EM data is then compared with logbook data and any discrepancies are reported to AFMA.

Essential elements of the program include:

1. 100% EM coverage, that is, all vessels in these fisheries, above a minimum effort threshold, are required to install an EM system and for it to be functioning 95% of the time

2. AFMA applies an audit approach when analysing the collected EM footage, where a random sub-set of the total shots captured in video are selected for review.

3. A minimum footage analysis requirement of 10% review of shots per boat with a minimum of one shot per month.

4. Review rates may be higher than 10% in specific circumstances, i.e., to meet a specific spatial or temporal management measure or to monitor interactions with specific species. For example, the GHATF requires 100% footage analysis of protected species interactions in areas know to be important for Australian Sealions.

 AFMA’s Perspectives on the Benefits of EM

Over the past eight years, AFMA has demonstrated a range of benefits from the EM program.  Although it is desirable to have a quantified cost-benefit analysis, this is difficult to achieve for an EM program.  That said, there are quantified examples showing that EM has:

1. Increased the accuracy of and confidence in logbook data

2. Supported more targeted risk-based management arrangements, including the implementation of discrete spatial and temporal management arrangements

3. Enabled compliance programs to target specific risks in a given fishery, rather than applying broad approaches

4. Supported greater vessel-specific compliance programs

5. Improved the ability to detect and address untoward behaviour, including the identification and rectification of previously unknown compliance issues

6. Improved transparency between stakeholders including supporting more rigorous management discussions. 

Decreasing uncertainty in fisheries data is paramount for stock assessments, for the implementation of harvest strategies, and for measuring the success of management measures.  The demonstrated congruence between the EM data and logbooks has improved AFMA’s confidence in the accuracy of the logbook data being collected and has supported AFMA’s original supposition that EM can:

• Verify data collected by other monitoring tools; for AFMA is this logbook data including protected species logbook data, and

• Collect data that is also collected by other monitoring tools, suggesting that with improvements in artificial intelligence and machine learning there is a possibility of using EM as a primary data collection tool.

It is likely that the congruence analysis also supports AFMA’s 10% footage analysis rate as providing a good reflection of all logbook data.  It is also likely to be affected by the EM coverage rate, the number of vessels with EM onboard in the fishery, and the random selection of the shots to be reviewed, however.  AFMA’s EM program requires 100% EM coverage (with all vessels in the four fisheries required to have EM onboard) and conducts analysis on a random 10% of shots by boat.

These elements, combined with the known presence of EM on a vessel, impacts the behaviour of crew (e.g., logbook reporting).  This is a well-known effect of surveillance referred to as the ‘camera effect’. Industry is aware that they are subject to EM analysis but are not aware of which shot from the trip will be analysed. 

The camera effect seems to result in more accurate logbook reporting across the fishery, which in turn is increasing the accuracy of all logbook data collected from the fishery generally and, importantly, for protected species interactions.  Complete logbook reporting by fishers of their interactions enables more accurate estimates of total interactions, leading to more confidence in management and/or mitigation measures.

Independent and verified results obtained through EM are definitive and have been helpful in underpinning management conversations between stakeholders.  In one instance, EM data has been instrumental in proving that certain fishery mitigation methods were effective and that the continued decline of the protected species was external to the fishing industry.

Critical for both management and compliance, behavioural changes resulting from the use of EM are long-lasting.  Outcomes include more accurate data, increased confidence in the data underpinning management arrangements, and, with improved compliance, greater confidence in the effectiveness of management arrangements to achieve their objective. These effects in turn support the potential for more discrete and targeted management measures, rather than fishery wide management arrangements.

AFMA is an EM advocate, but also recognises that EM is not a panacea. EM is one in a suite of monitoring tools used by AFMA to manage and monitor fisheries and a one-size-fits-all approach to monitoring fisheries is no longer the best approach.

Essential to AFMA is that the data needed for fisheries management decisions drive the mix of monitoring tools to be used in the fishery. Use of EM will depend on the fishery and the monitoring objectives under consideration. The collection of biological data and/or samples is likely to remain under the remit of observer and port monitoring programs, while EM could replace the use of VMS as a geolocation tool in some fisheries.

 EM programs are costly to plan and implement.  AFMA’s EM program took significant time and resources to design, develop, and implement.  Along with change-management and engagement with industry, a range of legislative, regulatory, policy, procedures and arrangements need to be developed to support the program. However, once established, the EM program has largely operated without significant oversight. 

AFMA’s EM program is 100% cost-recovered from relevant industry sectors, so the benefits of EM need to be demonstrated and realised to maintain confidence in the program and broader management measures.  Although costs remain an issue, industry is supportive of EM as a monitoring tool.  It has provided accountability and transparency that were not as apparent with other such tools.

AFMA’s EM journey and the lessons learnt has identified the following key ingredients in a successful EM program:

• That the data needs of a fishery drive the design of the EM program, and that industry is a co-designer of the program’s design

• A requirement for 100% coverage, that is, that all fishing activities in the fishery are subject and captured by EM

• An audit approach for EM footage analysis, that is, that a random selection of total shots is selected for footage analysis

• Industry ownership of the EM systems to support ongoing maintenance of the systems including while at sea

• Regulations specifying the maintenance of the systems to ensure the collection of high-quality footage, for example a requirement for regular testing and cleaning and for vendors to provide rigorous services to industry, and

• Seeking to integrate and/or provide greater interoperability between the various monitoring tools required by fishers under the regulation.

These are all lessons to remember in the EM road. Thanks, Claire (and AFMA), for sharing them!

Regional fisheries bodies and their role in improving safety and decent work on Fishing Vessels

Exellent and timely publication by FAO, that made me very happy for two reasons: it is an area I have been working for FAO and others, but also because they have chosen one of my photographs for the cover.

In fact, I just finished my presentation on the fisher's labour conundrum I’ll be presenting at the 17th INFOFISH World Tuna Trade Conference and Exhibition.

I recommend you read the whole from here, yet I quote some of the text and graphs that are key for me

Commercial fishing remains one of the world’s most dangerous occupations. FAO amended its global estimate of the number of fatalities fisheries in 2019 to 32 000 casualties per year. However, new research by the PEW Charitable Trust, Lloyds Register Foundation, International Maritime Organization (IMO), FISH Safety Foundation (FSF) and FAO, with contributions from many FAO Members, suggests that the number of fatalities within the fishing sector is likely much greater than 100 000 annually.

Most accidents and fatalities happen in small-scale fisheries. These fishers have not received safety training, the vessels they operate are generally unsafe and safety equipment is lacking on-board. 

WHY FOCUS ON REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES?

In accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), flag States have the primary duty to take, or to cooperate with other States in taking, measures for their respective nationals as may be necessary for the conservation of the living resources of the high seas. Where appropriate, this cooperation shall take place through subregional or regional fisheries organizations.1

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development emphasizes the importance of regional and subregional dimensions, regional economic integration and interconnectivity in sustainable development. The regional level is the most appropriate level for establishing a collaborative framework to preserve and protect whole ecosystems efficiently while also providing opportunities for participating States to benefit sustainably from the services they render (Løbach et al., 2020).

The importance of RFBs and RFMOs for the management and conservation of fish and fisheries does not require more explanation here.

The role of RFBs and RFMOs in terms of promoting and ensuring safety and decent working conditions within the fleets under their management regimes has however not been recognized by either IMO, ILO. Nevertheless, the fisheries management and conservation mandates of these regional bodies have an impact on fishing vessel safety, the safety of fishing operations and the working conditions of fishing personnel. Therefore, it would be valuable to bring these regional bodies on-board in the improvement of safety and decent work in fisheries and make use of their frameworks and networks in fisheries to further the ratification and implementation of the international binding instruments on safety and working conditions in fisheries (e.g. CTA, C188, STCW-F and PSMA).

RFBs and are every day confronted with decent work and safety aspects on fishing vessels operating under their mandate. The accidents and fatalities that happen on vessels in the fleets that they manage are a concern to the RFBs. It is recognized that fishing is one of the most hazardous jobs in the world and that unhealthy and unsafe practices on board increase the risks for fishing crew and negatively impact on the economic viability and social acceptability of fishing fleets. The livelihoods of fishing households and their communities is at stake when many accidents happen. Moreover, climate change and extreme events are putting fishers at even greater risks than before as fishers are forced to fish further from shore or in new fishing grounds, with changing gears and weather conditions. These trends impact fishing fleet management by RFBs as well.

Within some RFMOs the understanding is increasing that it is important to ensure that vessels and personnel are safe and working conditions are decent. The benefits in terms of reducing search and rescue costs, medical and compensation expenses, inspection times, and reducing reputational risks connected with indecent working conditions (including child labour and forced labour) are better understood. However, in many regions the protection of human rights in the fishing sector is not obvious, and while some RFB members consider these subjects important, they receive limited attention from others.

There are many reasons why RFBs should support decent work and safety on fishing vessels operating under their mandate, including:

• Fishing accidents and fatalities, slavery on board, disappearance of fisheries observers, and bad working conditions of fishers on board of vessels operating under an RFB regime reflect negatively on these organizations and can result in a bad image. The bad behaviour of one member may reflect on the other members in the collaboration.

• RFBs are crucial for instigating change in their member countries – through awareness raising, development of fisheries management recommendations or measures, and in-country capacity development – and so can bring the fisheries sector in line with other sectors that are already addressing working conditions and safety.

• Economic barriers to trade based on labour and safety issues are growing and RFB member countries might be impacted if they are not prepared.

• Experience is growing in RFBs around the world that improving working conditions and labour rights for crew and observers is important, and that positive changes can benefit the industry, including through attracting qualified labourers.

• Guidance exists for improving safety and working conditions on fishing vessels, and capacity development support is readily available to support RFB members in making the necessary transformative changes.

• Mutually supportive international fishing safety instruments are available to guide RFBs. IUU fishing, safety of fishing vessels and fishing vessel personnel, decent working and living conditions and sustainable fisheries management are all connected.

• RFB members have already approved the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the 2014 Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries and the 2021 COFI Declaration for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture and may already be party to at least one of the relevant key binding international fishing safety instruments.

The objective of this study, carried out in 2021–2022, was to understand how safety and decent work on fishing vessels aspects have been incorporated into the work of the RFBs across the globe, to highlight efforts already undertaken, to share experiences learned to date and to identify additional priorities and gaps to address in the near future.

In addition, the study aimed to identify RFBs interested in developing action plans for increasing the attention of their membership to safety and decent working conditions on fishing fleets operating under their mandate.

Finally, the study served to inform FAO’s partner agencies in the United Nations, IMO and ILO, on the instrumental role of RFBs in promoting international fisheries instruments and improving safety and decent work in the world’s fisheries as well as in supporting members to conduct relevant training and capacity building with respect to labour laws and safety of fish workers.

 Are safety and decent work priorities for the membership?

This is a really simple and good question… the graph below was very illuminating for me. The same % of countries think is a priority as those that don't... even if without fishers there is no fishing

 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusions presented here are drawn from the RFB survey conducted in October 2021 and the desk research carried out into activities of RFBs on safety and decent work in fisheries. 

• Thirty-seven RFB secretariats (19 RFMOs and 18 RFABs) participated in the survey of which the results have been presented in this circular. The RFBs have either an advisory function or have a mandate to adopt legally binding conservation and management measures for the fisheries resources in their areas.

• The RFBs that participated in the survey show a large variation in terms of mandate (e.g. marine fisheries, specific species, inland fisheries, aquaculture), coverage area (e.g. high seas, deep sea, coastal or inland waters), membership (e.g. SIDS, LIFDCs, developed countries), and fleets (e.g. small-scale and industrial), and as a consequence have different situations and needs in relation to safety and decent working conditions in fisheries.

• The survey showed that safety at sea is a priority for 51 percent of the RFBs. Thirty-five percent regard safety as important, but not a priority. Thirty-eight percent of the RFBs surveyed consider decent working conditions a priority. Decent working conditions are important, but not a priority for almost 30 percent of the RFBs.

• Many RFBs are mandated through their basic texts, commission meetings and requests from members to take action on safety and decent working conditions on fishing vessels operating under their responsibility. The basic texts of RFBs provide the legal basis for any work on safety and decent working in fisheries for 51 percent of the RFBs. Commission meetings (61 percent), global and regional instruments (49 percent) and requests by members (46 percent) contribute substantially to RFB measures and actions to improve safety and decent working conditions on vessel operating under their mandates.

• Conservation and management measures, especially for safety of observers, are often the entry point for work on safety and decent work standards by RFMOs. The obligations of members under international fishing safety instruments also play a role.

• RFB secretariats support safety in fisheries through trainings and manuals (32 percent), awareness raising materials (32 percent), and recommendations and measures (24 percent).

• Most RFB secretariats noted that decent working conditions in fisheries have not been addressed or are not within the mandate of these organizations. Twenty-seven percent of the RFB secretariats mentioned however that some awareness raising on decent working conditions in fisheries has taken place. Only a few RFBs prioritize decent working conditions in fisheries.

• Since 2018, several RFBs have supported decent work and safety in fisheries through regional technical seminars organized by FAO in collaboration with the Apostleship of the Sea, IMO and ILO. These seminars aimed to address Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, decent work and safety in fisheries.

• Knowledge of international fishing safety instruments (e.g. C188, Cape Town Agreement, STCW-F and FAO/IMO/ILO Safety codes and guidelines) is limited among RFB secretariats. The technical, financial and human capacity limitations within the secretariats impede their attention to safety and decent work.

• The international instruments adopted to establish minimum standards for safety and decent working conditions on fishing vessels have not attracted the acceptance of many members and remain unchartered territory for many RFBs.

• Many RFB secretariats recognize that development of an action plan would be beneficial to mainstream safety and decent work better in the management of fishing fleets under their mandates.

• FAO is currently (2022) supporting WECAFC and BOBP-IGO with their action planning processes. It is expected that these first action plans will pave the way for other RFBs to adopt a similar approach and can help to showcase the instrumental role of RFBs in promoting international fishing safety instruments and improving safety and decent work in the world’s fisheries as well as in supporting members to conduct relevant training and capacity building with respect to labour laws and safety in the fishing industry.

The recommendations that can be drawn from the above conclusions are the following:

• Awareness raising. RFB secretariats, supported by members, should promote understanding among the membership about binding and voluntary international instruments on fishing safety and decent working conditions.

• Capacity building. RFB secretariats, supported by members, should provide technical guidance, develop training materials and organize capacity building activities to increase the capacity of the RFB membership on safety and decent working conditions on fishing vessels. The capacity of RFB secretariats to deliver on these “new” duties should be enhanced through training and additional staff allocation to the secretariats to implement safety and decent work related activities. RFB secretariats will also require additional financial support. For many of the secretariats, safety and decent work are novel issues and introducing the change required will demand investments for which funds may not be available in the current budget.

• International collaboration. Collaboration across multiple international organizations (e.g. FAO, ILO, IMO, Pew Charitable Trust, Apostleship of the Sea), RFBs and national line ministries (e.g. fisheries, labour, maritime safety) should be enhanced to address the common goal of a sustainable fisheries, which is also safe and provides decent working conditions for all working on board of fishing vessels. The FAO/IMO/ILO Joint Working Group on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Related Matters (JWG) can be an important vehicle for interagency collaboration and coordination in the longer run as it is a permanent structure, based on agreed principles between the three agencies.

• Assessment and planning. RFB secretariats, supported by members and international partners (e.g. FAO, IMO, ILO) should assess the safety and working conditions on the vessels operating under their governance, collect and analyse data on accidents and fatalities in their fleets, and develop action plans or strategies to improve the safety and working conditions on vessels of their fleets.

• Sharing of experiences. Lessons learnt and knowledge acquired in the process of introducing safety and decent working conditions in fisheries should be shared across RFBs. Many of the RFBs have common socioeconomic, cultural, and legal backgrounds. They share similar realities and face related challenges. Hence, they can learn from each other’s experiences in making transformative changes on safety and decent working conditions in the fleets operating under their mandates.

• RFB mandates. Some RFBs should review and consider updating their basic texts or adopt resolutions that mainstream social aspects of fisheries, including safety and decent working conditions, with the fisheries management aspects covered already by these RFBs. Modern fisheries governance requires attention to the working conditions of men and women who risk their lives while supplying seafood to the world.

International treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects

I have participated in the negotiation and drafting of a few international regulatory instruments and many RFMO Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs).

yeah sure… i wait for the next agreement

Definitively not my favourite job… and I admire those that are VERY good at that… they mix a legally Shakespearian understanding of the English language, a Machiavellian understanding of international powerplays and geopolitics, plus a master politician capacity to put their country at the minimum compromise.

So in most of the cases is about lawyers type nit-picking the working text (which is always in English, and therefore gives lots of advantage to native speakers) which in most cases is the 2nd or 3rd for the rest of us so we die in boredome when there are 20’ discussion on a footnote. I know is part of the game, but one that operational people like me don’t like… I look for the objectives of the paragraph, they are trying to find traps in every word.

So in many cases, they aim for the lowest denominators where you can get away by compromising the least.

Now add to that in general, we don't have an issue of lack of regulations and agreements, but one of implementation of the ones already negotiated. 

So when I read the title of this paper “International treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects” sadly I wasn't surprised… while not specific to fisheries it makes a depressive yet realistic read, particularly since the authors scope extended to over 250,000 international treaties that aim to foster global cooperation.

As usual, read the original, I just quote the parts I found more useful as a plain reader.

Significance

International treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects except for international trade and financial laws and treaties with enforcement mechanisms. These results are unexpected because they challenge conventional wisdom about treaties, which are widely considered as the apex mechanism for countries to make commitments to each other. Not only do our findings question the usefulness of the more than 250,000 existing treaties that have been negotiated to date but they should directly inform how national governments and international institutions facilitate global cooperation on the myriad challenges we face and how future international treaties can be better designed for greater impact.

Abstract

There are over 250,000 international treaties that aim to foster global cooperation. But are treaties actually helpful for addressing global challenges? This systematic field-wide evidence synthesis of 224 primary studies and meta-analysis of the higher-quality 82 studies finds treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects. The only exceptions are treaties governing international trade and finance, which consistently produced intended effects. We also found evidence that impactful treaties achieve their effects through socialization and normative processes rather than longer-term legal processes and that enforcement mechanisms are the only modifiable treaty design choice with the potential to improve the effectiveness of treaties governing environmental, human rights, humanitarian, maritime, and security policy domains. This evidence synthesis raises doubts about the value of international treaties that neither regulate trade or finance nor contain enforcement mechanisms.

Conclusion

Unless different evidence emerges, calls for new international treaties to address global challenges beyond trade and finance should be received with caution. Although the meta-analysis relies on the current state of published evidence, our findings that treaties governing environmental, human rights, humanitarian, maritime, and security policy domains have not demonstrated impacts either point to the failure of these treaties to achieve impacts or the failure of researchers to generate evidence of impacts. If pursued, enforcement mechanisms appear to be the only treaty design choice that holds promise of maximizing the chances of achieving intended effects. Future treaties beyond trade and finance that do not have enforcement mechanisms are unlikely to be worth their considerable effort and may have unintended consequences. These findings are immediately relevant for treaties that are currently being negotiated or that are being considered for negotiation.

On becoming a Rhodes Ocean Scholar

I'm mack to NZ after finishing the unique experience of participating in the 25th Edition of the Rhodes Academy of Oceans Law and Policy in Greece.

a fisherman and scholar :-)

I have not done anything like this ever before… the only thing close to it was in 2005 when I did a 2-week training at the World Bank Institute in Paris on Environmental Economics for Development Policy

But yeah, as I wrote before, this is very well regarded training on UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law oil the Sea), something I have been working under in one way or  another for almost 40 years… one could say I been having an affair with UNCLOS, so I thought it sourly be good to formalise our relationship

These two components to it, a social with alumni from Iceland to Sierra Leone, and from Ukraine to Sri Lanka and lecturers that are the top of the top in that nerdiest of worlds… including former and present presidents and judges from ITLOS (International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea)

Some of the lectures taught the lessons in 1st person since they were the negotiators, and that was invaluable, while others were top academics or experts in science subjects (i.e. geomorphologists and oceanographer's - which I enjoyed)… but as well we had practising case lawyers, and that lawyers heavy presence (is law of the sea after all) was perhaps the biggest challenge for someone with my background, lawyers and scientists think different

My feeling on my deep dive on UNCLOS is both re-vindicating and frustrating… is all there! The obligations of conduct and result by flag states and coastal states are blatantly clear, yet even so, and after 40 years, we are still trying to get them to comply.

Overall was excellent as I’ve got to understand how everything “fits” in the bigger picture of UNCLOS as the anchor of many vital organisations and agreements that refer to it

As expected, the fisheries side was relatively light as it must fit among many other components. Personally, I thought they were a bit too academic and Eurocentric, (I guess is understandable since most lecturers are European) and a bit “doomy”….Not to say is all good, because is not true… but we have examples of fisheries that doing well and organisations/areas that are doing well thanks to the rights provided by UNCLOS, WCPFC / FFA is the 1st one to come to mind, but also Iceland and or Faroes are great candidates too), it would have been great t have a relative “success” story presentation

The other area I would like to have heard from a UNCLOS perspective was the basis for labour/human rights at sea.

In any case, I enjoyed it and learned a lot.

A cherry on the cake was to be asked to deliver a valedictory, which I accepted to do under the condition of having colleagues of different gender, race and age with me.

Perhaps the easiest way to explain what this training meant is to paste below what I said at the end of the graduation ceremony at the Palace of the Grand Master of the Knights of Rhodes. (amazing place)

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa

Greetings, Greetings, Greetings to you all in Māori the language of the country that has been my home for over 30 years.

I acknowledge you and the many more that have called this magnificent place home over thousands of years.

Where I live, no gathering of people starts without a few solemn words of traditional wisdom, and for this occasion, I would like to quote a whakatauki, a Māori proverb that is more than fitting for this moment  

He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata! He tangata! He tangata!

What is the most important thing in the world? It is people! It is people! It is people! 

This whakatauki talks about the importance of human connection and relationships. This is what creates community and enables people to flourish. It values the human being in all of us and reminds us of what is most important – not money, not a success, not a job or a thing – it is people.

In these 3 weeks we learned much more than the content of the blue book of UNCLOS. We learned from the peoples and times that created those words, the fears and triumphs, the reservations and aspirations of the many that contributed for decades to what is known as the constitutions of the oceans.

But what I consider a real privilege is that we learned much of that from those that can tell that story in 1st person, those whose life and wisdom have been devoted to its interpretation and as any law, its ultimate use for that most difficult of human creations: Justice

We also learned ourselves from how the Law of the Sea influences each of our professional and personal lives, independently of whether we are involved in navigation, science, dispute settlements, underwater cables, deep seabed regimes, climate change, pollution, fisheries (as in my case), and many other aspects that it will take actually 3 weeks to enumerate and be fair.

Yet besides being a profound collective experience as the people we are, it has I’m sure been a deeply personal one as well. Each of us got here through a different journey (literally and metaphorically) originating in different parts of the world. 

Personally, not in my wildest dream when I started piling fish in a fishing boat in the south atlantic and later on in the pacific I would have ever thought that I’ll be here learning about the ultimate law that has ruled my life as a man of the sea and meeting all of you, a group of amazing people, full of experience, dedication, enthusiasm, willingness and originality. You fill me with the hope that the many challenges we face as people have a chance and I’m deeply thankful and honoured for the privilege of having shared your time, knowledge and company.

We are here because of the ocean, not one that separates us but one that brought ALL of us together as one.

Labour Standards on Fishing Vessels: A Problem in Search of a Home?

I love when things align, and this is one of those cases.

On one side, the people from InfoFish has been very kind to asked me again to talk this year at the world tuna forum,. This will be my 6th time speaking there, and they have always supported me view and are keen users of my ‘people” pictures so instead of a talk about my usual fare of CDS, PSM MCS and compliance stuff, I proposed talking about people and this was my pich:

In the tuna world, there have been significant advances in sustainability, management and quantification of IUU fishing. We have RFMO’s conservation and management measures that look after the long-term sustainability of tuna catches and the welfare and safety of sharks and rays for example. Yet almost no framework that looks after the key factor of why we have a tuna fishery: its people. This presentation will not try to sell you anything, nor convince you that this or that private scheme profiting from this sad situation will solve the problem. This presentation intends to present the human side of fisheries, the faces of only a few of the thousands that will never be at this conference, but the ones that are out there on vessels and wharves allowing us to be here. The presentation will discuss who should legally be looking after their interests and welfare, what good things are happening and how the failures of responsibility by some developed flag states are pushing developing coastal and port states to try to find solutions. And finally the hypocrisy of how we, as a worldwide industry, require and expect excellence from all of them, yet we offer and pay mediocrity at best.

And they liked it! So I was planning to get my best pictures and finds based on my work for FAO writing the Draft Guidance on Social Responsibility in Fish Value Chains and the recent paper I co authored into a presentation, and legally anchor it in my present learnings in UNCLOS training I’m working my self into here in Rhodes.

And then yesterday, this absolutely amazing paper I been waiting for a while by my aquintance Dr. Penelope Ridings came my way. "Labour Standards on Fishing Vessels: A Problem in Search of a Home?" and really is a crucial reading for those of us working on the fisheries and fisherman labour rights areas. She is our region top legal scholar in all things law of the sea, RFMOs and fisheries… and her paper is by far the clearest and most comprehensive read I had in this topic, which has been close to my work (and frustrations) since writing the Draft FAO Guidance on Social Responsibility in Fish Value Chains that bounced at COFI FT

The only bit I wish someone explores (with her depth of understanding) is the “immigration” type component from foreign workers in fishing vessels. In my personal case I had a working permits, then visa when I started working in the fishing industry in NZ that gave sort of “equal” rights to kiwis… yet this is not the case in many countries. In fact the biggest cases on labour abuse happen on vessels of flag states that run a two tier systems for foreign workers (one for people coming to work in their territory - via immigration , and a different for people in the their vessel - generally not regulated by anyone) which i think is aberration.

Needless to say, I will quote a lot of her writing (as is done in a manner and clarity I’ll never achieve) in my presentation in Bangkok, but here I wanted to quote some of the main issues I absolutely agree with her and been part of my thinking over many past blogs on this topic. As always: read the original if you have time.

The legal and jurisdictional framework for addressing labour conditions on board fishing vessels is centred on art 94(1) and art 94(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’).13 These articles place responsibility on the flag state of a vessel for, inter alia, ‘administrative, technical and social matters’ on the vessel, for ensuring safety at sea, and for ‘the manning of ships, labour conditions and the training of crews, taking into account the applicable international instruments’.14 Much of the international discourse on labour conditions on fishing vessels focuses on the question of how to enhance mechanisms to ensure that the flag state properly fulfils its flag state responsibilities and how states may exercise complementary jurisdiction.

It should be emphasised that each of the various international and regional agencies involved in seeking to address labour standards on fishing vessels is making best efforts to address the issue within its mandate. The problem is not with the lack of individual effort of organisations but with the fragmentation of these efforts and the difficulty of dealing with the issue in a coherent and holistic way.

The theory of international organisations is traditionally based upon functionalism — the idea that international organisations exist in order to exercise functions delegated to them by member states, and states cooperate in order to give effect to certain functions.62 The review of the applicable international instruments and organisations engaged in seeking to address labour standards on fishing vessels highlights the deficiencies with a functional approach to such international issues. The tension between state sovereignty and the function of international organisations creates a situation where members of an organisation may question the competence of the organisation to deal with a particular matter.63 A functional approach is not able to respond effectively to cross-cutting issues and produces international legal rules which are fragmented and lack coherence. It has, in the words of Jan Klabbers, ‘passed its sell-by- date’.64

In part this is due to the very multifaceted nature of the problem. The international legal norms with respect to conditions on board vessels are based on flag state responsibility and control. It is incumbent on the flag state to construct vessels with appropriate standards, to ensure that the owners and masters of vessels adopt and apply proper labour standards on vessels, and to verify and enforce compliance with those standards. Yet flag state enforcement is frequently lacking, particularly, but not only, on vessels flagged to countries with poor compliance records. In many cases crew on fishing vessels find positions through recruiters or brokers in their home countries.65 Yet the home state may not regulate manning or recruitment agencies, leaving their nationals subject to unscrupulous dealers. The capacity of other states to exercise jurisdiction in respect of labour conditions and abuses on fishing vessels, including coastal states, port states and home countries of crew, may be limited.

The issue is not necessarily due to a lack of international agreements but more to the lack of binding rules applicable to a large number of flag states and, importantly, inadequate compliance with those international instruments that are applicable.66 There are very few ratifications of the major international treaties designed to address labour standards. Even if the international rules exist, there is an apparent inability or unwillingness on the part of flag states or other states with potential jurisdiction over such vessels to monitor compliance or enforce those rules.67 This is compounded by the use of flags of convenience to avoid more stringent legal requirements. There is also little demonstrated push to enforce the rules at a national level.

There is a tendency for the complex jurisdictional issues to be used as a justification for inaction.68 The flag state cannot exercise jurisdiction over persons outside its control, such as recruiters or brokers in the home country of fishing crews. It has also proved difficult to take action against the agencies involved in the recruitment of migrant fishers.69

The effectiveness of international labour standards depends on the degree to which these standards are incorporated into domestic legislation and enforced by domestic authorities. The fact that the exploitation of fishers takes place outside the territorial jurisdiction of a state and within the jurisdiction of the flag state poses evidentiary and jurisdictional challenges. It is difficult to investigate incidents which take place on board vessels in distant waters. Crew may be intimidated and not wish to come forward due to potential retribution. Fishers on distant water fishing vessels spend long periods at sea and may not visit their home countries or other ports very frequently. This may place them at the mercy of the vessel master and severely limits their ability to protest their treatment. Even where crew do protest, other countries face jurisdictional challenges in taking action in response.

As a result of this, attention has turned to whether other states, in particular port states, may also play a role in raising and applying minimum standards. The nine regional memoranda of understanding on port state control are geared towards inspections of ships for safety standards and pollution and do not provide an easy vehicle for inspections relating to labour conditions on board.70 However, the ILO Work in Fishing Convention provides optional port state jurisdiction for states that are party to the Convention to investigate, report on and take steps to rectify alleged violations of the Convention on ships in its ports, even in cases where the flag state of the ship in question has not ratified the Convention.71 The same potential occurs with the Cape Town Agreement which provides minimum standards for accommodation and other conditions on fishing vessels. If more states ratified these two treaties, it could open up the possibility of using port state measures on the basis of the ‘no more favourable treatment’ requirement.72

Another fundamental issue is that the existing legal instruments keep the issues of human rights and labour abuses in the fishing sector and IUU fishing separate from each other with little coordination between the various agencies involved.73 This is compounded because labour standards are usually managed by the labour ministry, while fisheries ministries do not have the power, expertise or mandate to deal with labour issues.74 There is a fragmented approach to the development of international rules and a resulting lack of coherence between the rules. The rules have been developed in silos and are inadequate to address a multifaceted problem which often takes place in areas where jurisdiction is difficult to exercise.

The functional approach to international organisations, where each agency is only able to take action within its specific mandate, and states are reluctant to expand the scope of an agency’s mandate, is the biggest impediment to effectively addressing labour standards on fishing vessels. The following section examines the responses that have been used to respond to these deficiencies.

A range of states and intergovernmental, non-governmental, industry and private certification organisations are actively engaged in seeking to address labour conditions on fishing vessels. Figure 1 illustrates this complexity. The difficulties inherent in an institutional framework which is regulated by so many different international organisations has been highlighted previously.117 However, it is not simply the plethora of actors involved, but the lack of serious engagement at a political level and the use of jurisdictional issues as an excuse for inaction.

Figure 1: Key Actors in ensuring decent work on fishing vessels

It does not need to be this way. New Zealand demonstrated a political commitment to taking action to address labour conditions on chartered fishing vessels and resulting jurisdictional issues by passing legislation requiring foreign-owned vessels to be flagged in New Zealand before being able to fish in NZ waters.

Calling for ratification of international instruments is not enough. There needs to be exploration of the reasons why the Conventions are not being ratified. It may be more constructive to encapsulate expected action in a single soft-law instrument to provide a coherent legal framework and which could be used to raise labour standards while acknowledging the link between poor labour standards and IUU fishing. This could lead to a UN General Assembly resolution which provides a set of concrete actions for flag states, coastal states, port states, migrants’ home states and recruiting agency states to follow. A joined-up and coherent legal framework would make complementary action by RFMOs more feasible. It is through such soft-law instruments that regulations, procedures or practices concerning labour standards on fishing vessels can become ‘generally accepted’ within the terms of art 94(5) of UNCLOS.134 As Judge Paik has said, it is important to read flag state duties under UNCLOS in a way which recognises that ‘flag State jurisdiction and control have evolved to cope with new issues, reflecting the changing needs of society and the new demands of the time’.135 This may mean that a greater range of states can play a role in ensuring compliance with internationally accepted norms to improve labour conditions on fishing vessels.

Particular attention should be placed on the role of port states and coastal states. Port states can complement flag state responsibility and make an important contribution to ensuring compliance with international rules. It is generally accepted that port states do not exercise jurisdiction over affairs that are internal to the vessel and that do not affect the interests of the port state.136 However, ‘[w]hat constitutes “internal affairs” of the ship and “interests” of the port State … depends to a large extent on specific circumstances as well as on the evolving dominant views in the international community’. In light of the interest of the international community in ensuring compliance with basic human rights norms, there is a role for port states in inspecting vessels and identifying instances of human rights abuses. This may be akin to an expansion of port state control to encompass labour conditions. This could provide an opportunity to integrate and ‘mainstream’ maritime labour concerns into the international regimes relating to ship safety and security and environmental protection.

Similarly, coastal states have the right under art 62(4) of UNCLOS to require that nationals fishing within its exclusive economic zone comply with coastal state laws and regulations.138 Nevertheless, there is a legal tension between this and art 94 of UNCLOS, which places responsibility on the flag state for the internal order of the vessel.139 Any lack of legal clarity could be one of the elements addressed in any soft law instrument in order to provide appropriate legal frameworks for both coastal state and port state action. At the national level, a new instrument could promote the intensification of state regulation of labour conditions on fishing vessels. It could reinforce the need to improve flag state implementation, compliance auditing and enforcement. It could also address the need for action to be taken in respect of recruiters and brokers in the fisher’s home state or in third states.

The search for a home

Labour standards on fishing vessels is a multifaceted, multi-jurisdictional problem involving a wide range of states and non-state actors. A multilateral initiative is a potential avenue and catalyst for enhanced action. However, more is needed than just expression of good intention or appeals to states to ratify relevant international conventions. Concrete actions need to be taken by states and businesses, those actions need to be coordinated, and there needs to be a follow-up mechanism to ensure that expectations are fulfilled. Fundamentally, a multilateral initiative within a UN framework would help to make the issue a global political priority and would enhance cooperation among the many involved actors. It is only through a UN process that such a multifaceted and crosscutting issue can be addressed in a concerted and coordinated manner. It can cut through fragmentation, circumvent the functionalism of international organisations and harness the necessary political will. A UN process can provide a blueprint for making a meaningful contribution to addressing the serious concerns over applicable labour standards on fishing vessels.

done with the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on transhipment

I been going on on the issues of transshipments for a while now, and in particularly as we headed into the technical consultation FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Transshipment that took place in Rome at the last week of June first week of July.

Needles to say, transshipment is port is fundamental to our work in RMI and transshipments in the HS in the WCPFC is our biggest headache. So we had a lot riding on this as a country but also as a region, so we had a few preliminarily meetings with FFA membership as to harmonise positions and when usually any FFA member takes the floor during negotiations, it talks on behalf the 17 nations, not just themselves.

In reality as RMI we were involved already in the expert consultation that developed the draft guidelines that were discussed by the technical consultation… while I wasn’t invited as an expert I was supporting technically on skype my friend Sam Lanwi that was the Deputy Director of MIMRA before becoming the Deputy Ambassador of RMI to UN bodies, (as well as other 2 participants that want to remain anonymous)

I thought the draft guidelines themselves looked fine to start with, and look just as fine now even after being pulled apart for 5 days. There were some good wins in there for us in terms of tightening some of the gaps in transhipment, which we had incorporated already in the draft, and then expanded in the consultation.

In any case the 5 days allocated to the technical consultation weren’t enough and we had to finish on a resumed session last Thursday.

I’m very happy with results since we got all the issues we wanted to see reflected in the final text, among others clear definitions of landing and transshipment, the presence of containers in the definition of landing, the observer or EM presence in carriers in HS transshipments, some further data fields in the developed forms, the acknowledgements in the process of partial Transhipments and landings, and some bits more.

Yet this is not to say the the process of setting the guidelines is very frustrating for me at least. Right from scratch (normally article one) is that this are “voluntary” ergo non binding… so for me this is the opportunity to be ambitious and try to close loopholes and have “vision”, something I know the Secretariat also wants, but cannot say.

Yet for many times, it seem that many countries just nitpick the text trying soften everything as to get their own operations exempted or getting into really technical discussion on things that are not really specific to the guidelines (a long discussion on the basics of VMS, which is a technical MCS issue on a technology that has almost 3pm years of maturity) which is infuriating, particularly as the meeting was happening in the comfort of the FAO HQ in Rome while we where on zoom from 8pm till 3 am.

So yeah, I have the same experience in term of lawyers type nitpicking the working text (which is always in English, and therefore give lots of advantage to native speakers) in many other meetings at FAO and the like the WCPFC. I know is part of the game, but one that operational people like me doesn’t like… I look for the objectives of the paragraph, they are trying to find traps in every word.

Anyway, even if we got all what we wanted (and more) there some lessons we learn and things we will not support again as we eloquently agree with my colleague Kerrie from the Cook Islands

I think the bigger issue though is that this was a test of how the hybrid setting would work. We are all acutely aware of the limitations of zoom, but I think it was a very noticeable shift in power and opportunity with some participants there in person and others virtually.

• It is much harder to intervene. It’s a very strange sense of watching a negotiation happening in front of you that you struggle to participate in.

• We didn’t get to participate in margins discussions. Compromises and new text were developed without us and then put in front of us to accept.

• It was obviously difficult to stick it out for 7 hours a day, over 5 days. Particularly when we are forced to deal with their two-hour lunch break (11 pm to 1 am for me!)

• Little care or courtesy afforded to those online. I could see in-person delegates becoming very impatient with virtual delegates. A distinct feeling that while they were perfectly within their rights to take time, but we weren’t.

• I have the sense that hybrid sort of works when there is a general consensus, but it doesn’t work when there isn’t, and it particularly doesn’t work if people online have a different view to people who are in the room.

• I don’t think it is in RMI's interests to support continued hybrid FAO meetings. Particularly not when it is an issue we care about. I think we will find ourselves increasingly unable to defend ourselves or prosecute our views, and we will be at the mercy of the people in the room.

I don’t see it being an effective platform for any sub-committee on fisheries management for example. I think in many situations we could almost certainly find the text dominated by a Eurocentric perspective leaving us in the Pacific with our innovative or different approaches in the awkward position of taking it or leaving it, or increasingly needing to narrow our interests down.

In any case, I really want to acknowledge the amazing role of the people in FAO secretariat that deals with these type of events, (many of then are my friends and colleagues) here and they are always in difficult positions in between the really high expertise in the way they work at that level (and cannot include), the wishes of the members participating (that may not really know much) and the frustration of operational people like me that sometimes get short-fused.

Off to the Rhodes Academy of Oceans Law and Policy

One thing that has been a constant in my life, is that I like learning and doing things that are beyong my many limitations… I’m not sure if it is a good thing, and got some “knock outs” from life more than once, yet while more cautious as I get older… I keep trying new things where to get my mind into it! (A girlfriend from my adolescence described that “drive” as “lust for life” in the words of Iggy Pop’s song)

Over the last few years, a got to understand in a more meaningful way that a lot of the work I have been doing in terms of compliance in fisheries is rooted in the Law of the Sea and a series of documents and agreements that are anchored to it.

Yet, I never had any formal education on that topic and my involvement has always been angled from the operational perspective, and normally access to knowledge in that area is restricted to law practitioners and not to ex-fisherman/ fisheries scientists like me.

From talking to knowledgeable people on the topic, they all agree that the best training in that area is the one from the Rhodes Academy of Oceans Law and Policy in Greece, which is an international collegial institution dedicated to fostering a better understanding of the modern law of the sea. Founded in 1995, the Academy held its inaugural session in the summer of 1996 and operates on an annual basis.

But I was also told that access is really competitive (allegedly 1 in 10 applicants get accepted), not shy of a challenge and with the support, encouragement and amazing reference letters of 3 great people that blessed me with their friendship, namely Michael Lodge (ISA), Audum Lem (FAO) and Rhea Moss-Christian (former Chair of the WCPFC), I applied in 2020… and COVID comes… so the selection process got suspended.

But I got the bug, so last year I apply and got accepted for a very good online training on Ocean Governance organized by the World Bank, in partnership with the University of Melbourne Law School, the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations, and with the International Seabed Authority.

So I applied again this year, and to my delight (and surprise!) I got accepted… so I’m off to Greece on my first trip in over 2.5 years (this has been the longest I've been in one place since I was 17! - 40 years ago)… and i’m really happy about it!

The basic object of the Rhodes Academy is to promote the rule of law in the world’s oceans. The Academy provides an educational forum for discussion of the principles of modern oceans law and policy, thereby fostering a broader common understanding of and adherence to the rule of law as set out in international agreements and state practice. The foundations of ancient maritime law are linked to the development of the Rhodian Sea Code (Lex Rhodia), dating to around the 8th century A.D. The roots of modern oceans law are often traced to the early 17th-century treatise by Hugo Grotius titled Mare Liberum (“Freedom of the Seas”). As maritime relations evolved, the concept of the freedom of the seas became the guiding principle under which nations conducted their activities in the oceans’ commons.

Is no hliday tho, each academic session of the Rhodes Academy comprises an intensive three-week course of lectures and seminars leading to a Certificate for all students who attend classes regularly. Students who elect to take and who are successful in passing a final examination are awarded a Diploma. While the curriculum varies somewhat from year to year, a general pattern for the academic program at the Academy is established. Week one is devoted to an introduction, history and overview of the conventional and customary law and practices concerning the modern law of the sea. Week two typically focuses in greater detail on specific topics such as marine resources and delimitation. Week three centres around topics such as navigation and the marine environment. Emphasis is placed on student participation in seminars or workshops dealing with particular cases or topical issues in oceans law and policy.

Three lectures are typically held daily from 9:00 AM to 12:30 PM. Seminars or workshops are given on  Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. An examination for Diploma candidates is usually offered on Friday afternoons of the second and third weeks.

The Rhodes Academy is a cooperative undertaking by international law experts and sponsoring universities and institutions. The current Directors are Robert Beckman, Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore (Singapore); Tomas Heidar, Law of the Sea Institute of Iceland (Reykjavik, Iceland); John Norton Moore, Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia, USA); Alex Oude Elferink, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht University (Utrecht, the Netherlands); Nikos Skourtos, Aegean Institute of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law (Rhodes, Greece); and Rüdiger Wolfrum, Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law (Heidelberg, Germany). The School of Marine Science and Ocean Engineering at the University of New Hampshire (USA), the Korea Maritime Institute (Busan, Korea) and the Ankara University National Center for the Sea and Maritime Law  (Ankara, Turkey) are associate sponsors.

Towards a model of port-based resilience against fisher labour exploitation

 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

On the Root Causes of Scholarly Bullshit - (not my words)

I been very quiet on the blog front, the reality is that in the period since the last entry, I have been seriously busy, did some national travel, and had a series of 4 to 5 days meetings (the last one was the FAO technical consultation on transhipment that got me doing overnight work), besides that, I had COVID and got a melanoma removed from my arm.

In any case, I’m on the ferry and read a paper that I was sent with a smile emoji… and yeah…people gotta be bold to write some things… I call a spade a spade, but I also learn that if you want to change stuff and antagonising people may not be the best strategy, so sometimes provide my advice in private first and then move on with the changes… and if things don’t move, then yes… go hard.

So I have to admire the boldness of Julian Kirchherr in writing a paper called “Bullshit in the Sustainability and Transitions Literature: a Provocation”, with one section is called, “A Typology of Scholarly Bullshit” and another “On the Root Causes of Scholarly Bullshit”

Not sure if I agree with everything, but as said before many times, I like papers that make me think! I relate to bullshit in different ways normally… my usual reaction is to those that point fingers at problems but do not their hand dirty to do the real nitty-gritty job of fixing it

The paper is free so go for it, I just quote the abstract and conclusions 

Abstract

Research on sustainability and transitions is burgeoning. Some of this research is helping to solve humankind’s most pressing problems. However, as this provocation argues, up to 50% of the articles that are now being published in many interdisciplinary sustainability and transitions journals may be categorized as “scholarly bullshit.” These are articles that typically engage with the latest sustainability and transitions buzzword (e.g., circular economy), while contributing little to none to the scholarly body of knowledge on the topic. A typology of “scholarly bullshit” is proposed which includes the following archetypes: boring question scholarship, literature review of literature reviews, recycled research, master thesis madness, and activist rants. Since “scholarly bullshit” articles engage with the latest academic buzzwords, they also tend to accumulate significant citations and are thus welcomed by many journal editors. Citations matter most in the metric-driven logic of the academic system, and this type of scholarship, sadly, is thus unlikely to decrease in the coming years.

On the Root Causes of Scholarly Bullshit

There appears to be a lot of scholarly bullshit out there. A previous version of this manuscript stated that at least 50% of the articles published in sustainability and transitions journals may be categorized as scholarly bullshit. This figure has also been noted in the introduction. Two reviewers of this work asked how this figure has been developed. The author of this provocation has selected ca. 100 articles published recently on CE in well-known journals such as Journal of Cleaner Production, Ecological Economics, and Sustainability. The author could instantly categorize at least 50% of these articles in one of the five archetypes proposed in Table 1 and thus suggests that perhaps up to 50% of the articles that are now being published in many interdisciplinary sustainability and transitions journals could be categorized as “scholarly bullshit.” Admittedly, and at the risk of turning this provocation into a parody, the author notes that further work ought to be undertaken to strengthen this initial estimate. After all, ca. 100 articles are not representative of the vast scholarly CE literature and any set of articles ought to be coded by at least two scholars to ensure reliability.

The author also maintains that many scholars appear to agree that too much inferior quality is published in many sustainability and transitions journals. For instance, one of the reviewers of this paper noted in their review: “Interesting, provocative article […]. The author […] touches a topic that is […] a reality. I must say that I don't disagree with the general comment about the load and quality of papers published.” Meanwhile, the editor-in-chief of one of the most respected sustainability and transitions journal wrote to the author regarding an earlier version of this manuscript upon submission to their journal: “I may meet resistance from my co-editors, but I will defend your paper. This needs to be said.” (Sadly, the co-editors sacked the paper, and it then took a while until this provocation found a home in a respected peer-reviewed journal.)

Additionally, it appears that an increasing number of academicians in the field would agree that the share of scholarly bullshit is unlikely to decrease in the coming years. After all, if one searches journals such as Journal of Cleaner Production and Ecological Economics, one finds that articles containing the latest buzzwords, such as “circular economy,” are among the most cited pieces. Publishing such works has caused the impact factors of many journals to skyrocket. Accordingly, there is a certain fear among the editors of these journals that they will miss the next highly cited article. At the same time, the sheer volume and growth of this sustainability and transitions buzzword scholarship guarantees that almost any article on the topic will garner at least a modest number of citations.

This all also drives more and more authors into publishing on the very latest buzzword, e.g., “circular economy,” which creates a perpetuum mobile respectively vicious circle (depending on your perspective) regarding publications on such topics. Given this dynamic, the author of this work contends that, at this point, it is very difficult not to get a piece entailing the latest sustainability and transitions buzzword published in an at least relatively known peer-reviewed journal. All contributors (journal editors, authors) know they may be producing scholarly bullshit; however, publishing such works is advantageous for everyone involved in this contemporary academic system.

These scholarly bullshit publications, in turn, as also noted by a reviewer of this paper, are driven, from a roots cause perspective, by the need for tenure respectively the aim to secure promotion and funding. Those who seek this are usually required to demonstrate recognition of their work in the scholarly community which is operationalized by having published many highly cited works on a topic that is en vogue. People need permanent jobs and the desire to acquire funding and promotions is also understandable. It may thus not be fair to blame all academicians out there for churning out scholarly bullshit. Rather, the focus may be turned to the elites that have designed an academic system that mistakes publishing many highly cited papers for the advancement of science. In other words: the academic system is so focused on quantitative targets that it may have forgotten what these targets were supposed to measure.

Replacing this system with one that eventually produces less scholarly bullshit is no trivial task. Those running this system have proven significant staying power. However, some scholars in the field of sustainability and transitions literature and beyond still appear to/may be able to care about more than their h-index. The next time these scholars embark on a piece of research, they should ask themselves: “Is this me now merely adding to the pile of scholarly bullshit? Or am I contributing to the advancement of knowledge in my field?” And even those scholars who are driven by the metrics of the academic system may find that true contributions could gather the most recognition in the end.

yeah… we all guilty a bit on it

Everything you eat costs the planet something

there ius no free lunch

I struggle when the discourse about sustainability gets levelled up to “no environmental impact”… which is an impossible basis for discussion.

If we want no environmental impact from anything we do or eat… then there is only one option: for all of us to die right now… anything else requires compromise… where that compromise starts is a matter of public policy and personal choice.

Drastic, perhaps, but look around you: wherever there is a building, a road, a farm, a mine, a port, a hospital… name it there was just nature in the past, and not now anymore…

I find it sometimes puzzling when I hear the critics of bottom trawling when they say: “imagine a bulldozer going over the land and removing everything on its way”… and I look outside and that is what I see… in fact if I fly from Auckland to Invercargill other than a few bits that are protected areas, or soils too poor or ravaged to maintain trees… is all burned or ploughed land… so I don't really get the metaphor. (btw… my take is as with any food production system, trawling has impacts that are highly dependably on the type and depth of bottom substrate – benthos-, of course trawling over pristine seamounts or coral reefs is not the same that over sandy muddy bottoms… that should be the basis of public policy… and if you disagree with the decisions… then make it a matter of personal choice and don’t eat orange roughy - as I do) yet be aware that as long as you are alive you are causing environmental impact.

Now if you talk about the environmental impact of food, then we also need to consider that there is benefit in terms of food production that people eat… primary production is not about “pleasure” at a cost to the environment as with “motorsports, jet skis and most forms of motorised water sports”  

So I find it interesting when papers come that actually not only compare the “environmental cost” of seafood production against other forms of food but also measure the nutritional benefits of those foods… which is not an easy task if it is to be done well.

And this paper does it without being too ambitious…I got to it via the good people of sustainablefisheries-uw.org and the original paper is freely available here… as usual, I just quote the abstract and conclusions  

 Abstract

Recent discussions of healthy and sustainable diets encourage increased consumption of plants and decreased consumption of animal-source foods (ASFs) for both human and environmental health. Seafood is often peripheral in these discussions. This paper examines the relative environmental costs of sourcing key nutrients from different kinds of seafood, other ASFs, and a range of plant-based foods. We linked a nutrient richness index for different foods to life cycle assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the production of these foods to evaluate nutritional benefits relative to this key indicator of environmental impacts. The lowest GHG emissions to meet average nutrient requirement values were found in grains, tubers, roots, seeds, wild-caught small pelagic fish, farmed carp and bivalve shellfish. The highest GHG emissions per nutrient supply are in beef, lamb, wild-caught prawns, farmed crustaceans, and pork. Among ASFs, some fish and shellfish have GHG emissions at least as low as plants and merit inclusion in food systems policymaking for their potential to support a healthy, sustainable diet. However, other aquatic species and production methods deliver nutrition to diets at environmental costs at least as high as land-based meat production. It is important to disaggregate seafood by species and production method in 'planetary health diet' advice.

Conclusion

Food production varies in terms of its environmental impact and its capacity to meet nutritional needs; this research combines these two factors, comparing products across plants and ASFs from terrestrial, capture fishery and aquaculture production systems, to identify foods and production system that provide nutrition at lower environmental impact. Foods sourced from plants as well as bivalve and carp aquaculture and small pelagic fisheries tended to have the lowest environmental impact given their nutrient richness to meet dietary requirements across a diversity of nutrients. In contrast, beef, pork, crustaceans, prawns and pangasius catfish had the highest environmental impacts given their nutrient richness. The contribution of plant-based foods discussed here supports the existing literature, but the potential role that certain species of fish can play in meeting dietary guidelines provides a novel insight to identify nutrient-rich sources that not only combat malnutrition but also reduce environmental impacts of the entire food system.

The regional distribution of IUU fishing

I often cringe at black statements that preclude that “IUU fishing is rampant worldwide” or even talk about it in the Asia Pacific region as is the realities of Tuvalu are the same as of China or Korea!  IUU is a big a complex issue that has different levels of impact and incidence in different regions. The realities of the SE Atlantic are fundamentally different to the ones of the SE Indian Ocean or the Western and Central Pacific Ocean… yet is difficult to find global studies that prove that.

Would you mind explaining me what good governance is?

Furthermore, I have a bit of an issue with “global studies” and rankings… as they normally come from developed countries and point down to less developed countries, as I wrote here, my reaction to indexes is always based on 2 questions:

1-    What’s the point? We all know what is wrong, we need help on how to fix it

and 

2:  How do you avoid being unfair?

Let’s say just for an example: 

Country A in Europe is rich and has an EEZ of 10 km2 and a budget for fisheries of 10 million that is 0.5% of their GDP, and 500 years of experience in bureaucracy. institutions and governments

Country B in the Pacific has an EEZ of 10000000 km2, a budget for fisheries of 1 million that is 10% of the GDP and was a colony until 1980, so has 40 years of experience in bureaucracy. institutions and governments

Who would you think will score better in any metrics based index?

Which brings me back to question 1: What is the point?

Yes, fisheries/ countries need better governance, more budgets, better management, better science, fewer subsidies, better data, blah, blah... Tell me something new... the solution is: ‘we should be all rich and well resourced?” 

But also in Spanish we say “el que mucho abarca poco aprieta” (he who covers a lot squeezes little) so the wider you go by definition the lesser you can squeeze) many of these rankings go around binomial metrics that may not tell the full story… a classic is: has the country signed FAO PSMA… As I said before there are many reasons why a country may not sign it that have little to do with their determination to fight IUU (i.e. the Marshall Islands) and there are countries that have signed and they are not doing much about IUU fishing (Uruguay and Mozambique are 2 countries testament to this, where I have 1st hand experience.

But then two of my friends and colleagues (Gilles Hosch and Graeme Macfadyen) for whom I have tons of professional and personal respect are involved in what many consider the best of these rankings… and I know the basis of my criticism is well known to them as they work internationally and know the realities better than anyone.

So while I don't like indexes and rankings, I respect the professionalism they put in their work and will quote here their recently published study: “Killing Nemo: Three world regions fail to mainstream combatting of IUU fishing” (albeit I don’t like the Nemo reference and disagree of the ranking of Uruguay and RMI) as it verifies my point that while IUU is a worldwide problem, is not equally or linearly distributed and the solutions are regional. 

The abstract set up the point very clearly: 

This study revisits the established correlation between IUU fishing and the quality of governance. However, rather than relying on estimates of illegally harvested volumes of catch, the study tests the correlation between the national response to combat IUU fishing – as a proxy of IUU fishing risk – and the quality of governance. Linear regression analysis was applied to a global dataset of 151 coastal States, and individually to eight world regions. The study finds that the correlation of the response to IUU fishing (dependent variable) with the quality of governance is highly significant at the global level, and across five world regions; namely Africa, Europe, North America, Oceania and South America. However, the correlation is not verified for Asia, the Caribbean and Central America, and the Middle East. For Asia, the study also finds that combatting of IUU fishing significantly weakens with rising national income. Asia, the Caribbean and Central America, and the Middle East account for more than half the volume of global marine fish catch and there regions score the worst for their response to IUU fishing in both the 2019 and 2021 IUU Fishing Index reports. The study concludes that the lack of correlation across these three regions suggests that relying chiefly on improvements in governance to bring about more effective combatting of IUU fishing will likely prove insufficient. More efforts will be needed across these regions to elevate the importance of effective fisheries management within national policy dialogues, to generate a substantially improved response to IUU fishing in the future.  

And the conclusion is robust.

The question why response does not improve with governance in three world regions requires further study, and the answers to that question will be instrumental in supporting initiatives advocating for change in this domain across these regions. 

The significant correlations between response and governance across Africa, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America show that the relationship between improved governance and enhanced response is valid in most regional settings. The significant correlation at the global level owes to the fact that these five regions harbor 63% of the countries covered in the study. However, the majority of regions (and countries) only accounts for 46% of world marine capture output. 

The absence of a statistically significant correlation between response and governance across Asia, the Caribbean & Central America, and the Middle East suggests that relying solely on enhanced governance to bring about improved responses to combatting IUU fishing will likely prove insufficient. Rather, specific efforts are needed across these regions to identify and understand the dynamics that undermine the quality of response, to elevate the importance of effective fisheries management within national policy dialogues, so as to bring about more robust combatting of IUU fishing in the future.

—-

The only conclusion I’ll add is what actually said a while ago in an interview: "In my opinion, one of the biggest hurdles that we face in legal and sustainable fisheries is that while we want it, we allow the underfunding of official institutions and pay fisheries officers and fishers salaries that are way below mediocrity, but we expect excellence from all of them"

The complex realities of support interventions in artisanal fishing

For most of my career I have been involved in commercial fisheries and only occasionally got involved in small scale ones, and in those few occasions form the practical side… basically going fishing, playing around with different ways of catching fish, how to handle it on board as to maximise the value of that catch (basically hammering that with fish you have to be clean, cold, gentle and fast) or explaining fishers what different gonadal stadia of the fish they catch means not only in terms of the fish post-harvest but also the bigger ecosystems picture. 

a great day fishing out for the local market.

Maybe because I also bring my trusty Leica with me on those trips, I have some good pictures of small scale fishers… in fact, FAO used quite a few for a calendar and the publication of the International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture IYAFA 2022 - Electronic Photobook.

And here is something I do struggle with (as a good friend told me) is that some of my pictures represent a sort of vision of artisanal fishers as some of the last noble savage type fishers who with a line in one hand and our pity in the other use their bare hands to catch fish in idyllic places. No surprise that to me this only further marginalises an industry that needs to modernise, provide quality jobs for young people, continue to provide public health goods, and be a key player in the sustainable development of fishery and supporting natural resources.  Unfortunately, the notion of the noble savage only plays further into the hearts and minds of conservation groups and to the benefit of external interests running the tourism industry. Many scientists are also caught up in this romantic notion of the noble savage, MPAs, conservation and tourism and see these as the panacea for economic growth in the pacific. 

So yeah… not a popular opinion… yet to my surprise, I was asked to come up with a few concept notes for potential forthcoming projects to support them.

Normally when confronted with this, I talk to my elders… people that I know have been around for a while (even if they are not older than me) for their experienced opinions on what problems exist and in most cases, they are long term issues… so I go back in time to see what has been done, what worked and what did not.

Om this last group (what did not) I normally fid two groups 1) was a bad idea… so yeah chances are it still is a bad idea and 2) was a good idea, but was badly implemented or it wasn't the right time… and I like this last group better.

So from the conversations with the elders and an analysis of how things have changed since they were tried and now, I decide if it is worth the try them again in a different way

So yeah… from that process I’ll be proposing projects in very different areas, and without going into deep details here is one:

Safety at sea, old school sailing and new Apps.

In traditional times all Pacific Island fishing craft were propelled by sail, paddle, or pole. In the past few decades, many of the fishing fleets have become engine-powered. This mechanisation associated with the availability of newer boats such as the fibreglass Yamaha type design (also known as panga, punt or banana boats) has sometimes enabled fishermen to land more fish, catch previously underexploited species, reduce the time necessary for a fishing trips, or improve the quality of the catch. 

Already in 1991, it was recognised that the introduction of these newer technologies has come at a time when it is recognized that in numerous countries with historical seafaring backgrounds, there has already been a distinct degradation of traditional sailing, navigational and seafaring skills over the year, so is much worst now.

The use of engines, however, has resulted in an increased number of safety at sea incidents. Across the pacific, a great number of powered small boats are getting lost at sea and resulting in loss of life, even if the strengthening of small-boat safety is of critical importance to Pacific Island governments. 

The advent of cheaper, better, and more-compact life-saving appliances make it possible nowadays to not accept anymore the relaxed attitude towards safety of many small-scale fishers and small-boat operators that prevailed three decades ago but still exists in the Pacific Islands.

It is a common occurrence for fishermen in small boats to develop engine problems offshore. Without a secondary means of propulsion, disabled boats will often drift away. Their crews far too frequently never return. 

It is generally recognized that small motor boats should never venture out of the lagoon into the open ocean relying on only one outboard engine. Carrying a second outboard engine certainly helps prevent accidents, but it is not the perfect solution; if the second outboard is seldom used, it may not be mechanically reliable. Also, if the cause of the primary outboard not functioning is lack of fuel or contaminated fuels, a second outboard will not help. 

Besides, the on-board storage of a second engine is always problematic on the newer design type boats used in the region. Furthermore, many fishermen may have difficulty in paying for an additional engine.

To further aggravate the situation, fuel prices are increasing with no end on site, adding to their already climate change impact when most countries are trying to minimize their use.

A radio and flares can be effective in some circumstances, but maintenance problems, range and lack of specific coastal monitoring reduce the effectiveness. While many interventions have provided EPIRB or the more affordable personal locator beacons (PLB), the reality is that these devices should be the very last resort to be used in dire emergencies as to the tremendous costs of activating search and rescue operations, and they do not help to get the boat back to port, which imply a substantial loss of capital.

A further complementary problem is the lack of awareness of present-day weather forecast availability. Many operators don't heed the weather forecasts and operate their crafts in weather beyond their capacity. Without propulsion, many of the crafts are fundamentally unstable and sink.

Two suggested potential solutions to this reality are:

1.  Promote and encourage the use of an Emergency sail rig as a backup way of returning home. There is a need to incorporate this concept on the boats that are currently used and as part of the plans for new boats

2. Dealing with the weather and logging departures: Fishers would benefit from the opportunity to receive updated weather reports and log their departures and returns for safety matters using a simple Information and communication technologies (ICTs)based tool that does not require physical interaction with authorities. 

Emergency sail rig

The idea of a simple emergency sail rig is the best and most accessible means of secondary propulsion for outboard-powered fishing craft and is not new to the region.

During 1990 and 1991 the FAO/UNDP Regional Fishery Support Programme worked on the development of an emergency sail appropriate for small fishing boats, on plywood skiffs in Kiribati, Aluminium in the Cook Islands, and fiberglass in Fiji.

This work was based on designs by O. Gulbrandsen, FAO consultant naval architect, that produced drawings for a 7 metre planning skiff, the KIR-10, for offshore tuna fishing in Kiribati in 1988, his work was then adapted to the other locations by Mike Savins, Robert Gillet for FA, and Hugh Walton for USP. 

Their suggested emergency sail rig as designed by Gulbrandsen, consists of six components: mast, yard, rudder, leeboard, sail, and rigging. The total weight of these was approximately 16 kg.

Tests on the suggested emergency sail rig indicate that it is capable of sailing 75 degrees away from the eye of the wind. This is made possible by the use of a leeboard which reduces the amount of leeway (drift sideways). 

Under most circumstances, this should allow progress to be made to windward in the event of engine failure. Sailing across the wind is considerably easier and faster. 

A major consideration in designing the rig was that it should not interfere with fishing operations. Hence very little space should be required to stow all the components. 

The picture on the right above shows the resulting rig on a typical Yamaha type fibreglass boat.

A 2003 review by FAO noticed that while the initiative was initially well-received, the programme did not result in many fishers maintaining the habit of carrying emergency rigs.  Feedback was sought (April 2022) on why the rigs weren’t maintained and further promoted by the coastal fisheries authorities, beyond the FAO intervention in the early 90s.

Their main findings were:

• The intervention was very short and did not have continuity, the main successes in safety at sea initiatives are with long-running regional support initiatives run by practical hands-on practitioners as in the case of SPC’s Coastal Fisheries Programme.

• There are limitations on sail materials and masts were mostly wooden which increased their weight.

• If an emergency sail rig can serve as a combined sun/rain cover and if the rig's rudder and leeboard are an actual floor section or a cutting board, they were usually carried.

• The project coincided with a time of substantial progress in terms of reliability of engines, a progressive lowering of costs (sometimes with state subsidies) and low fuel prices which did not align with the objectives of having sail support.

• The focus of many programmes made grab packs and VHF radios made for a more interesting alternative for many fishers and donors.

After 3 decades the present situation has changed in various aspects

The price of fuel 

The nominal avg. price of fuel has more than duplicated since 1990. Therefore, the cost of fuel is now a more important issue than in the past (and the incentives for hoarding, diluting and tempering the fuel quality has increased)

New and cheaper rig materials

The availability of new technologies and light materials associated with fibreglass/carbon mast sails cloth and designs could provide for lighter and less obstructive designs.

Experienced operator in the region

The success of past SPC safety at sea awareness work together with the ongoing requirements suggests that SPC efforts in this subject should continue

Is believed that these conditions are right for FAO in collaboration with SPC to review the early work done in 1990 under the new set of circumstances and conduct trials in at least two countries to be decided

Develop an ICT based tool for fishers

In fisheries, new ICTs are being used across the sector, from resource assessment, capture or culture to processing and commercialization. Some are specialist applications such as sonar for locating fish. Others are general purpose applications such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS) used for navigation and location finding, mobile phone-based Apps for trading catch, information exchange and emergencies, radio programming with fishing communities and Web-based information and networking resources. 

However, many of these especially dedicated tools are in a cost range that exceeds the financial capabilities of the fishers, or, have to be installed and removed from the vessels. 

There have been advances in East Timor and Indonesia plus an existing tool being used in the Caribbean, as well as SPC’s own experience on Apps developments for fisheries and navigation purposes, which warrant the development of a Fisher’s App containing a “suite” of tools that could be used from a mobile phone.

Today’s entry price mobile phones are incredible tools that bring together in one various different “technologies”, they are at once a personal locator beacon, a GPS navigation device, and GPS equipped camera, besides being a 2-way communication device.  Those “tools” can be easily and cheaply interfaced with Google maps platforms and with the willingness of the social responsibility and sustainability sections of mobile companies, provide for positive advances in small scale fisheries that can be achieved via a win-win scenario.

A specifically developed App will open a “suite of services” that are at the disposition of the fishers.

Some of the potential uses of such an App are:

Registration:

• The app key traceable element is the ID of the fisher in charge of the vessel. 

• Once the user registers his details become part of the database and the app, recognizes the phone number of the unit being used (hence it becomes independent -if needed- in case fisher changes number)

• The registration includes next of keen

• Implications in terms of safety at sea

• Departure and return logging 

• Communicate date, time- and location-of departure are logged automatically from the App. 

• Estimated time at sea (i.e. 24, 48, t2 hrs) can be pre-set as well as expected fishing zones to be visited. 

• Return to shore also logged may it be the same or different from departure.

• If a vessel has not logged an entry in the expected time frame, authorities and pre-defined personal contacts are alerted 

• Knowing the ID of vessels and the expected zone of fishing can alert the nearby vessels which could facilitate as well the action of the rescue centre

Navigation / Weather Information

• Based on the GPS coordinates of the registration data, it provides information concerning current weather conditions at the location and 3-day forecasts, as well as moon phases.

• Weather is basic to deciding the fishing area and fundamental in terms of safety at sea.

• Knowing the size of the vessels (from registration), departure and expected fishing area (from logging in) can provide advice on safe time of return or non-advisable areas.

• Moon phases facilitate fishing in some species but as well fishing at night

• Navigation software that allows the fisherman to see the coordinates of fishing grounds, save and view locations at sea, view compass bearings and navigate to the desired location. View Alerts (see “alerts”) on a map and navigate directly to them. 

• Fuel is consistently one of the major costs in small scale fisheries, any help or facilitation in terms of minimizing fuel consumption is the be supported. 

• Furthermore, the faster the fish moves along the value chain the higher its quality

Alerts

• Based on the phone number and connectivity alerts can be sent directly by the database.

• This is a two way direct communication to the vessels either by individual or by area

• Safety alerts

• In the case of a tsunami or heavy weather alerts, this can be communicated to all participating fleet in selected areas or all areas

• Rescues / Assistance

• If a vessel in the same network is in trouble the central database can identify the nearest vessel/s and alert them of the ID and position of vessels in distress and this could advise on further actions or needs

A similar initiative in Chile in 2015 I was involved with, noted that most fishermen interviewed had an “intelligent” phone of some sort, and all of them reported having at least a 3G signal up to 10 miles from shore (hence the technology and tools are well incorporated by the ultimate beneficiaries). Initial conversations with the local telecommunication companies were extremely positive in terms of facilitating the technical development of the platform and facilitating low-cost plans and subsidized phones and waterproof covers. A further option explored was solar chargers.

Is important to note here that, that the management of such as system may not need to be with an official organisation, it could potentially be co-managed in between a fisher’s organization and an adequate line agency (ether fisheries, maritime police, etc)

so yeah… let see how it goes, and if they like the ideas…

Revealing global risks of labor abuse and IUU fishing

I get frustrated quite often when I see blank statements about fisheries, as if all oceans, all types of fishing boats, all flag states, and all areas of operations are the same. (Think if I was to say the same about agriculture, and say that the cultivation of Palm Oil in Borneo has the same social and environmental impacts that organic carrots in NZ).

High Seas Transhipment os a longliner in between 2 dodgy flag states, what you expect?

This is more so when we talk about the overlap between IUU fishing and labour abuses (which as presented in this prior blog occurs only in the minority of IUU cases)

I discussed many times, that in my experience, the weaker the flag state the higher incidence of issues will be, furthermore if vessels fish in HS that risk factor increases massively, add to that the type of gear (which relates to many of the vessels characteristics and expertise in crew needs) and you have a very good risk profile where to find problems… longline and squid jiggers flagged in weak flag states fishing in high seas (and transhipping there to a carrier from other weak flag states) and in particular in areas with limited or nil RFMO oversight (like the SE Atlantic of parts of the Indian Ocean) and that is where your worst-case scenarios will happen.

Yet that is my personal and professional experience, but I cannot prove that “scientifically”… so I love it when I read a paper that aligns and confirm my personal views… here is one: “Revealing global risks of labor abuse and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing”

Surely not coincidentally I have corresponded and interacted with 7 of the 8 authors, namely Elizabeth R. Selig , Colette C. C. Wabnitz, Henrik Österblom, Jessica Spijkers,  Nathan A. Miller, Jan Bebbington & Jessica L. Decker Sparks, (but not Shinnosuke Nakayama) and they are alll at the top of their games (in fact, I blogged about a Jessica Sparks paper last week)

I was interviewed and had discussion with some of the authors about aspects that surely are part of this paper and I was very happy to read it, and see my perceptions being proved tight by people that is way more educated than me.

Also because the results align with our own local undwerstanding of what is the IUU reality in the WCPO and the FFA membership, which is the bit of the ocean my friends in the PICs and I work with and care for.

The only are where I maintain a doubtful attitude, (albeit the very well-grounded methodology they use) is around the impact that signing PSMA has on fleet dynamics. Signing PSMA does not linearly implies that the vessels is implementing PSM.

There are many reasons why a country may choose not to sign PSMA while still provide for good standards in PSM (for example RMI, PNG, Tuvalu just to name a few) on the other side of the coin, countries like Uruguay who has been documented receive vessels that have fished illegally in the south Atlantic was one of the 1st ones to sign PSMA, Vanuatu, a country with an difficult record in terms of flag state responsibility and IUU fishing, is a signatory, I worked in Mozambique and Myanmar (signatories) many times and I can assure you there are no even the minimum PSMA practices. 

In my experience the non signing commitment has more to do with geopolitics, costs, etc, that with government permeability to IUU fishing, to be totally honest  in many cases... laziness... as people can't really be bother.

And I worry that the focus on PSM (which is necessary) comes at the cost that flag states are not pulling their weight! The actions of a vessels are ultimately the responsibility of the flag state (and this paper proves that week flag states re more involved in IUUthis) and because many don’t really leave up to their resposnbilities, it becomes necessary for coastal and port states to pick up the slack (and get criticise or called “port of conviniences” if they don’t)… and the flag states what? 

In any case is great paper that I recommend you read it!

I just quote a bit that I really like!

Understanding the factors that drive risk is important for designing effective policies, collecting relevant data in seafood supply chains, and identifying the stakeholders that need to be involved in reducing risk. Port risk scores were used to determine at-sea risk areas. We found fishing vessel flag to have the greatest impact on predicting port risk for both labor abuse and IUU fishing, followed by vessel gear type for labor abuse, and the interaction between flag and gear type for IUU fishing 

And the Conclusion

Co-located risks at ports and similar risk drivers for labor abuse and IUU fishing offer opportunities for synergistic action across the range of activities needed to mitigate them. For example, across independent analyses for labor abuse and IUU fishing risks, flag states with poor control of corruption and Chinese-flagged fishing vessels were found to be related to higher risks for labor abuse and IUU fishing, reduced vessel visits to PSMA-ratified countries , and shorter port durations suggesting a need for greater focus on these vessels in port controls and inspections. Additional due diligence measures in company supply chains for vessels with these characteristics could also be prioritized, particularly in high-risk ports. Similar actions may also be needed for carrier vessels flying flags that are associated with high ownership by countries other than the flag state, and higher risk fishing vessel gear types that may have transshipped. Although the specific actions needed for reducing labor abuse and IUU fishing may be different, establishing transparency and accountability at port holds promise in reducing risks for both. Higher risk areas are challenges for governments, seafood companies, and other key actors to manage collaboratively. Remedies need to focus on addressing risk, rather than moving operations elsewhere, which would only displace risk and may be operationally difficult due to fuel efficiency and logistics. Instead, high-risk areas offer opportunities for greater stewardship by actors to reduce risk in places where they operate or have jurisdiction. Increased coordination can leverage the particular strengths of each actor, including enforcement and monitoring capacity, market-based or financial incentives, social norms and governance control, to focus on places our results suggest are at greatest risk. Previous work in fisheries has illustrated that collective action between diverse actors generates results. By wielding their respective powers, key actors can take concerted action across supply chains, create or improve regulatory frameworks, and catalyze change in industry behavior to reduce the risks of labor abuse and IUU fishing in global fisheries.

“Worker-less" social responsibility in voluntary labour governance tool and private certifications

I made it abundantly clear that I struggle with private certifications in the seafood world at all sorts of levels, seafood processing, ecolabels and crew labour for many technical reasons and some principle ones.

Instead of paying the certification, just pay me more and respect my rights as if was on land

In a nutshell for me, private certifications/voluntary standards create a parallel system instead of supporting the organisations that are supposed to do the job. 

And it gets worse, since the origin of this movement is based on the assumption that food safety, fisheries and labour administrators (in particular those from developing countries) are not doing a good enough job, yet many times during my work with many fisheries administrations in the Pacific I have spent 2-3 days responding to the questions of the consultants that have come to ‘assess’ the situation for certification... so in effect, they come for data to the people and institutions that the ‘consumer’ does not trust! 

That irony for me is mind-blowing. If you really want to help, why not just support the official institutions in the countries whose job and whole existence is to deal with those issues, instead of creating a parallel system where the money goes to private organizations from rich countries instead of fishers and workers from poor ones.

So when I read in the title of a paper “Worker-less social responsibility: How the proliferation of voluntary labour governance tools in seafood marginalise the workers they claim to protect” I get immediately interested!

The paper is spearheaded by Jessica Sparks, with whom I have corresponded and chatted over the last years and also Chris Williams who I recently interacted too. I think the paper is a ‘must-read’ if you have an academic, practical or commercial interest in the labour topic in fisheries, and I dully recommend you read the original, has it has excellent comparative tables along with all the commercial options (pun intended) out there.

I quote the Abstract and the Conclusion 

Abstract

In response to labour and human rights violations on board fishing vessels, the private sector is increasingly relying on market-based solutions in the form of voluntary, non-governmental social governance tools to improve working conditions for fishers. While the proliferation of these tools is relatively recent in fishing, there is substantial evidence from other sectors that these voluntary standards fail to transform working conditions. Yet, there remains an insistence on using market-based solutions to mitigate labour abuses in fishing despite the problem being a market failure. Using a human and labour-rights based analytical paradigm that underpins worker-centric processes, we constructed objective criteria to assess several voluntary standards against. Failing to include workers and commit to meaningful remedy, findings from the analysis suggests these voluntary nongovernmental social governance tools are not able to ensure that human and labour rights are respected in a way that is consistent with state and international regulation or rigorous human rights due diligence. As a result, there is an urgent need for a transformational shift in the sector away from a worker-less reactive and adaptive corporate social responsibility strategy of doing less harm toward a fundamental commitment to redistributing power through a worker-driven social responsibility paradigm.

Conclusion

The hydra of non-governmental social governance tools being produced will be an ineffective means for increasing respect for and improving human and labour rights within seafood supply chains in the absence of transformations in the following areas: 

1) the business models of seafood businesses; 

2) the long supply chains within the seafood industry; 

3) worker participation in the governance of seafood supply chains; and 

4) the widespread adoption of ILO C188 and similar laws and conventions by fishing nations. 

The tools assessed in this research have been developed by bodies that have vested interests in the continuation of a social responsibility culture that does not ensure accountability, nor create real liability for those exploiting fishers. These bodies avoid measures that would make seafood supply chains transparent and traceable and keep failing to give workers or their representatives a seat at the decision-making table or in the verification processes. 

While for those operators who already respect their workers, these tools can provide a benchmark to maintain good practice, unfortunately, for those who do not, these tools are a minor and easily circumvented (and voluntary) inconvenience, which can provide public relations and financial benefits to the companies, with no benefits ‘trickling down’ to workers. For criminal operations, these tools pose no significant threat at all. 

The working conditions of fishers should be regulated along the same general principles as other shore-based industries as well as being comparable to working conditions in the merchant marine, with adequate consideration being given to addressing the special conditions which apply to fisheries. 

The conditions of work for fishers should, as a general rule, be the result of collective agreements and negotiations between vessel owners and trade unions or fishers’ organisations that fulfill similar functions, and be fully in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core labour standards adopted by the ILO and reflect the principles set out in the ILO’s Decent Work Programme. National law should, depending on national labour market traditions and customs, supplement the conditions set out in such agreements. 

Even in the ideal circumstances, voluntary non-governmental social governance tools are an adaptive strategy to do less harm. Instead of increased investment in these voluntary tools, seafood brands and retailers need to encourage the sector’s movement toward a more transformational, transparent, and worker-centeric approach, such as worker-driven models of labour participation, monitoring, and remediation.

IUU fishing and other fish crimes

For years I have been a bit reticent on the general criminalisation of fishers where IUU fishing is railed down as being de facto seen as involving crimes like drugs, arms trafficking.. which from my experience can happen, but that is not ALWAYS the case.

Stern talks are part of the life on board

This recent paper “Fish crimes in the global ocean” by Dyhia Belhabib (whom I have corresponded with and have tons of respect, she published this article we wrote with my friends) and Phillipe Le Billion (whom I don't know) proves my point above… the majority of IUU events happen as only IUU, with a minority involving other forms of crime

Is a big paper that needs substantial digestion, but is interesting for its ambition.

While I have issues with papers that look at global aspects (as it always implies compromises) I’m absolutely aware of my minimal academic credential (I only have 2 masters) so I would not dare comment on the methods. 

Coming from an operational background, in my experiences, the realities of tuna fishing are totally different between Purse Seiners and Longliners to  point of difficult comparison, furthermore different areas of the oceans are totally different in terms of the level of governance and MCS, and even in these specific areas the difference in between coastal states jurisdiction and high seas is vastly different, albeit being in many cases vessels flagged to the same DWFN

Yet I get two main points:

Our analysis reveals that the most common offense remains fishing without a license or permit, with 48% of all offenses, and other fishing offenses (31%) including gear, season- and zone-related, underreporting, and quota-related offenses, followed by human rights and labor abuse (11%); transshipment (3%); and smuggling of drugs, arms, and other goods and products (4%)

From a IUU fishing this tells me of all the offences they analysed (48% unlicensed  +31% gear seasons reporting, etc + 3% transhipments related) 82% are fisheries-related issues, 11% labour / human rights and only 4% are for smuggling drugs, arms, etc… 

Later the paper says

Of the 6853 incidents recorded, 6003 incidents (88%) involved fishing vessels caught for a single type of offense: 4954 for one illegal fishing, 140 for illegal transshipment; 66 for illegal diversion including noncompliance strategies, forgery, or the illegal use of flags;  

While I would add those categories under IUU fishing … in any case, the paper recognises that 11% (772 events) included at least two types of offences. And of those Illegal fishing is linked to other non–fishing-related offences in 57% (around 360?) of the cases with two or more offences.

While this may not be the aim of the paper, (around 360 out of over 6500 even if my calculations are wrong) I think is good news as it shows that the vast majority (80%+) of the vessel engaged in IUU do not partake in other crimes. 

From the perspective of someone that works against IUU (which is already hard) but has no legal capacity to tackle the other issues, it means to me that I can focus on IUU as that is most of the work and then expand into joint work with other authorities (always complicated) for the minority of cases.

Yet there is one part that I disagree with, based on my local experience, is under the title

Interactions with labor abuses and slavery at sea

Our analysis shows that these cases are notably reported for slavery aboard occurring in the territorial waters and EEZ of Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Somalia, South Africa, and Thailand with over 291 cases globally where illegal fishing was linked to forced labor. All of these cases occurred on industrial vessels and by their crewing companies involving either companies or individual recruiters.

I don't know about the other countries… But Papua New Guinea has some of the strictest controls on its tuna fleet in the region and I have worked on their vessels… so unless this refers to the illegal inclusions of Indonesian vessels over the EEZ borders of the smaller scale fleet, I’m not sure where that reference came from

Anyway… other than my personal uneducated take on these issues, and areas one may or may not agree, the paper is a good read, since it makes you think! And in my small fisherman head, thinking is always a good thing.

Can e-dFADs be used as floating open-ocean sampling stations for tuna biomass?

Been writing on the impact of eFADS in the tuna fishery for a new years now… I find them fascinating, and they have revolutionised the fishery, to a point where I think that if they were to disappear, a substantial amount (50%?) of the fleet would collapse… particularly as many of the “pre eFAD” skippers retire and their traditional knowledge goes with them. 

I see them as treat but an opportunity at the same time…  recently wrote about an paper analysing if drifting eFADs can be a good source of independent data for Stock Assessments…. So when new FADs papers come I’m keen… and particularly if they can contribute to stock assessment.

Ergo, one named “TUN-AI: Tuna biomass estimation with Machine Learning models trained on oceanography and echosounder FAD data” was in that alley.

I’m not going to pretend I understood the whole paper… as is dense in statistics and programming…. But the abstract, discussion and conclusion make sense in my little brain… so here they are. But as always: Read the original!

Abstract

The use of dFADs by tuna purse-seine fisheries is widespread across oceans, and the echo-sounder buoys attached to these dFADs provide fishermen with estimates of tuna biomass aggregated to them. This information has potential for gaining insight into tuna behaviour and abundance, but has traditionally been difficult to process and use. The current study combines FAD logbook data, oceanographic data and echo-sounder buoy data to evaluate different Machine Learning models and establish a pipeline, named TUN-AI, for processing echo-sounder buoy data and estimating tuna biomass (in metric tons, t) at various levels of complexity: binary classification, ternary classification and regression. Models were trained and tested on over 5000 sets and over 6000 deployments. Of all the models evaluated, the best performing one uses a 3-day window of echo-sounder data, oceanographic data and position/time derived features. This model is able to estimate if tuna biomass was higher than 10 t or lower than 10 t with an F1-score of 0.925. When directly estimating tuna biomass, the best model (Gradient Boosting) has an error (MAE) of 21.6 t and a relative error (SMAPE) of 29.5%, when evaluated over sets. All models tested improved when enriched with oceanographic and position-derived features, highlighting the importance of these features when using echo-sounder buoy data. Potential applications of this methodology, and future improvements, are discussed.

Discussion 

The purpose of this paper is to present a new pipeline for estimating tuna biomass aggregated at dFADs, named TUN-AI. The pipeline uses echo-sounder buoy, oceanographic and FAD logbook data to train multiple Machine Learning models that solve different tasks relevant to fisheries operations. To find the most accurate methodology, we tested the performance of classification and regression methods, as well as the relative impact of including different data sources on model performance. The approach used in the current study differs from previous work in several ways. Although the methodology in Baidai et al. (2020) is similar to ours, they only tackle the classification problem, and thus they are not able to directly estimate the metric tons of tuna under the dFAD. They also have a smaller sample size in terms of sets (albeit similar) that covers only the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Finally, we have also tested several models for each task in order to find the one with the best overall performance. Model performance of the two studies are hard to compare directly, since the models have been trained on different datasets. It is worth noting that other studies that address the regression problem, like Orue et al. (2019a); Lopez et al. (2016), cannot be directly compared with this study for a number of reasons: First, their sample size is orders of magnitude smaller (21 and 138 sets, respectively). Second, they only have data from a single ocean (Atlantic and Indian, respectively). Finally, they perform a statistical model fit, while our study involves a full ML approach with train-test split and a much larger dataset. This means that TUN-AI is expected to have the reported performance on new, unseen data, while there is no guarantee that the models in Orue et al. (2019a) and Lopez et al. (2016) will generalize as well, as they use the same dataset for model fit and error evaluation. In addition, the assumptions and data-processing methods applied in other work may not be directly comparable to the process described here. For example, Orue et al. (2019a); Lopez et al. (2016) assume that tunas only occupy layers deeper than 25 m, thus omitting biomass estimates from shallower layers in their analyses. In our case, all layers were considered, as skipjack tuna are known to prefer warmer surface waters in areas where the thermocline is shallow (Andrade, 2003). In fact, later studies using the same approach as Lopez et al. (2016) did not achieve significant improvements on biomass estimates (Orue et al., 2019b). When developing tuna presence/absence and classification models, Baidai et al. (2020) also chose to consider all layers in their analyses, which used data from a different brand of echo-sounder buoys in the Atlantic and Indian oceans, but did not consider oceanographic parameters in their models. 

Our analysis also evaluated the impact of oceanographic conditions and position-derived variables on model performance. Across all tasks and models, the inclusion of additional features clearly improved when compared to the model that only used echo-sounder data. This highlights the importance of enriching biomass estimates with contextual information when using data from echo-sounder buoys attached to dFADs. Although at first glance this would prove laborious, the current pipe-line draws from automated processes for extracting the oceanographic data and relating it to the other available datasets, thus the added complexity translated to only a few minutes of additional computation time on standard equipment. Given the improvement in model accuracy when including this information, and the potential applications of having accurate methods for estimating tuna biomass at dFADs, we consider that it is worthwhile to use all available information. 

Previous studies have investigated the relationship between tropical tuna distribution and oceanographic conditions, both through catch data from observer logbooks and from dFAD data. For instance, in the Atlantic and Indian oceans skipjack tuna has been known to aggregate around upwelling systems and productive features where feeding habitat is favorable, and variables such as sea surface temperature or SSH have been shown to have a significant relation with tuna distribution (Druon et al., 2017; Lopez, 2017). In addition, Spanish fishers using echo-sounder buoys on dFADs consider that the oceanographic context of the dFAD, and the characteristics of each ocean influence the accuracy of biomass estimates provided by buoys (Lopez and Scott, 2014). It is worth noting that the oceanographic variables included in the current study were at surface level only (except for thermocline depth and SSHa). However, given the fact that tuna distribution within the water column is largely temperature dependent (Aoki et al., 2020; Hino et al., 2019; Tanabe et al., 2017) it is likely that models would further improve when considering variables depth-wise. 

Models could be also enriched by considering dFAD soak time, which has been relevant in previous research, or presence/absence of bycatch species and other species of tuna (Orue et al., 2019b; Lopez, 2017; Forget et al., 2015). Indeed, the presence of small schooling bycatch species such as oceanic triggerfish (Canthidermis maculata), which has been found at dFADs (Forget et al., 2015), could be affecting the biomass estimates provided by the echo-sounder buoys. We see some evidence of this when examining the accuracy of our models in the binary classification task (see Table 7): the model performed worse when being tested on sets. This is likely due to cases where species other than tuna were contributing to the echo-sounder signal, so the buoy’s biomass estimates were high even though real catch of tuna at the dFAD was low. This was reflected particularly in the Atlantic Ocean, where accuracy was lowest and bycatch is higher than in other oceans (Restrepo et al., 2017). Future studies could include the bycatch information recorded in the FAD logbooks to account for this effect. Looking more closely into the binary classification model, we can see that the worst performance comes from trying to distinguish sets that catch less than 10 t from the rest. This makes sense, since the fact that a fishing vessel decided to set on a specific FAD is probably already a good indicator of the echo-sounder measurements showing a strong signal, which probably correspond to other fish species. 

These are clearly the hardest observations to distinguish. In the current study, species composition of the catch data was not considered. As the echo-sounder buoys used in this study calculate biomass estimates based on the target strength of skipjack tuna, it is likely that the presence of other tuna species such as bigeye, which has a lower target strength (Boyra et al., 2018, 2019) and thus stronger acoustic response, would impact biomass estimates from the echo-sounder buoys, contributing to errors within the models used to estimate aggregation size.

Most traditional echo-sounder buoys do not currently differentiate between species when giving biomass estimates, though recent buoy models, such as the ISD+buoys included in the study, provide a daily estimate of species composition together with biomass estimates. Although previous studies have highlighted the importance of considering species composition when estimating biomass (Moreno et al., 2019; Santiago et al., 2016), the information from these buoys has not yet been applied, and should be considered in future studies. Likewise, this study only used echo-sounder information from one buoy manufacturer, although vessels may use buoys from up to four different brands. 

The echo-sounders and buoys from each manufacturer vary on a number of levels: beam angle, sampling method, echo-sounder frequency, etc.; so the same machine learning models used here cannot be applied directly. Nonetheless, future studies could explore the application of similar ML models to the biomass estimates provided by other buoy brands in order to establish manufacturer-specific echo-sounder signal processing pipelines. In the case of classification models, the confusion matrices in Fig. 4 showed that most cases where the model misclassified the tuna aggregation size were when biomass estimates were medium (10 t ≤ y < 30 t) or high (y ≥ _30 t). On the other hand, when examining the regression models we found that estimated tuna biomass tended to be lower than observed tuna biomass as the latter increased (Fig. 6). This could be due to various factors: firstly, catches over 100 t were relatively rare (in our data, 315 events, 8.1%) and thus the model did not have sufficient examples to properly learn from them; secondly, buoys are only able to estimate the biomass of tuna within the echo-sounder beam, and in tuna aggregations over 100 t it is unlikely that the entire school is under the buoy at the same time. Furthermore, it is possible that with large schools of tuna the echo-sounder signal saturates, and the biomass estimates provided by the echo-sounder buoy become an underestimation. To resolve this issue, it could be interesting to apply specialist models which could be adjusted according to when aggregations are predicted to be small or large. It is also worth noting that fishermen do not choose on which buoys they set at random, but based on the biomass estimation provided to them, and thus could be biased towards buoys with higher biomass estimations. This could be a further reason why our ML models underestimated the observed tuna biomass when its values were above 30 t in the case of the ternary classification, or 100 t in the case of the regression tasks. Future studies exploring the reasons behind fishermen’s decisions to visit a buoy could provide further insight into this point. This tendency to underestimate should also be taken into account when using information derived from echo-sounder buoys for stock assessments (Santiago et al., 2016), although consistent underestimation should have no effect on patterns present in the temporal series. 

The pelagic and migratory nature of tuna make it a challenging species to study using traditional methods, as only a small part of this species’ habitat can be observed in real time at any given moment. However, dFADs equipped with high-tech echo-sounder buoys, as those used in the current study, can be used as floating open-ocean sampling stations, gathering constant and current information from various sensors. 

As shown here, and as remarked by other authors (Orue et al., 2019a), although the information provided by the echo-sounder alone is valuable, it still requires extensive cleaning and filtering prior to use. These initial protocols can avoid errors due to measurements taken by the buoys on board or on land, but the ML techniques used here go a step further in processing the echo-sounder signal to correctly estimate tuna biomass beneath any given echo-sounder buoy. This way, the echo-sounder signals can provide insight into the whereabouts and behaviour of tuna around dFADs, at a fraction of the cost of what scientific expeditions with the same scope could achieve. As highlighted by previous authors, this type of data could be used for fishery-independent abundance indices, improving knowledge on species distribution or better understanding the factors driving aggregation and disaggregation processes of tuna at dFADs (Santiago et al., 2016; Lopez et al., 2016; Moreno et al., 2019). 

The current study represents an important step in this direction, being the first to successfully evaluate the performance of numerous ML models, following correct ML methodology using large amounts of data to both train and test each model. This has allowed Tun-AI to tackle the most tasks of various complexities, including directly estimating the amount of tuna aggregated to the dFAD, achieving high degrees of accuracy. As evidenced here, when the massive data provided by echo-sounder buoys attached to dFADs is further enriched with remote-sensing data on conditions across oceans, and trained with reliable ground-truthed data, ML proves a powerful tool for extracting otherwise hidden patterns in these datasets, potentially furthering knowledge on pelagic species.

Latest crop of papers that I barely got time to read!

Normally when i like a paper a do a deep dive, take some notes and write here about it. Yet the last month has been quite busy as i’m doing a lot of reading of papers for meetings, finishes an estimation of containerisation for FFA, review a IUU NPOA that was done under format i designed, did some work on transhipment observers, work on a carrier inspection training manual, and my ocean acidification course, and my training for swimming 20 km next week for charity, made for a rather exhausting schedule so my blogging rate has been low.

I had a go to the following papers that I enjoy even if was only a “light” read. As a non specialist (and a non academic) I have the luxury to have various interests in what are very different areas of fisheries… yet after almost 40 years in I fisheries, I see it has a very dynamic model where everything has an influence at some stage… either direct of indirectly.

Timing and magnitude of climate-driven range shifts in transboundary fish stocks challenge their management

This is something big for us here in the pacific, so i like to keep up to the game. I know two of the authors (Colette C. C. Wabnitz, and Rashid Sumaila) but also one of the reviewers: numbers maverick and fellow dubber Alex Tidd. The abstract is self explanatory:

Climate change is shifting the distribution of shared fish stocks between neighboring countries’ Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and the high seas. The timescale of these transboundary shifts determines how climate change will affect international fisheries governance. Here, we explore this timescale by coupling a large ensemble simulation of an Earth system model under a high emission climate change scenario to a dynamic population model. We show that by 2030, 23% of transboundary stocks will have shifted and 78% of the world's EEZs will have experienced at least one shifting stock. By the end of this century, projections show a total of 45% of stocks shifting globally and 81% of EEZs waters with at least one shifting stock. The magnitude of such shifts is reflected in changes in catch proportion between EEZs sharing a transboundary stock. By 2030, global EEZs are projected to experience an average change of 59% in catch proportion of transboundary stocks. Many countries that are highly dependent on fisheries for livelihood and food security emerge as hotspots for transboundary shifts. These hotspots are characterized by early shifts in the distribution of an important number of transboundary stocks. Existing international fisheries agreements need to be assessed for their capacity to address the social–ecological implications of climate-change-driven transboundary shifts. Some of these agreements will need to be adjusted to limit potential conflict between the parties of interest. Meanwhile, new agreements will need to be anticipatory and consider these concerns and their associated uncertainties to be resilient to global change.

China’s seafood imports—Not for domestic consumption?

Already 20 years ago we were catching Hoki, doing gill and gutting, freezing on board, unloading to containers and sending to China for processing and exporting. A few years later the company actually establish a joint venture there with a local processor and sold under its own brand… New Zealand caught fish to US and EU consumers… you had to look on the fine point to see was processed in China.. all above board in terms of labelling and compliance (to make happen was my job at the time).

So obviously i was interested to see what what the present situation… and i have to admit it blew me away…. China is the biggest fishing nation in the works on all metrics… yet this paper estimates that we estimate that almost 75% % of imports to China are processed and reexported.

Here is the abstract: Global trade in seafood is tightly coupled with environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Yet, two features of global seafood trade hamper efforts to promote sustainability. First, the recent practice of importing seafood, processing it, and then exporting it (“reexporting”) at a large scale complicates tracing seafood from the water to the plate and enables mislabeling. Second, reexports can exacerbate problems stemming from distant-water fishing (DWF), i.e., fish caught in international waters and other countries’ economic zones. DWF obscures the distinction between domestic and imported seafood and is implicated in illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and other unsustainable practices (5). Both features highlight the critical role of China, the world’s largest DWF nation and largest seafood producer, consumer, exporter, and importer (by volume). Contradicting the narrative that Chinese domestic demand is driving imports, we estimate that 74.9% of imports to China are processed and reexported.

Links between behaviour and metabolic physiology in fishes in the Anthropocene

This is interesting one as it tackles the issue of recreational fishing to and extent. As non motorised spear-fisherman, I see the massive impact that recreational fisheries have in developed countries particular close to urban areas, as in my home, Waiheke Island in the Hauraki Gulf of NZ.

The paper is wide but im very interested in the following concept: “While, it appears that all types of capture fisheries are likely to reduce the adaptive potential of fished populations to climate stressors, angling, which is primarily associated with recreational fishing, may induce the separation of natural populations by removing individuals with bold behavioural traits and potentially the physiological traits required to facilitate behavioural change.”

In the graph you see here, that suggest/concludes that recreational fishing and climate change select for lowered adaptive potential… and that is not good news… as we never had so much of both like now.

Here is the abstract:
Changes in behaviour and physiology are the primary responses of fishes to anthropogenic impacts such as climate change and over-fishing. Behavioural changes (such as a shift in distribution or changes in phenology) can ensure that a species remains in an environment suited for its optimal physiological performance. However, if fishes are unable to shift their distribution, they are reliant on physiological acclimatization (either by broadening their metabolic curves to tolerate a range of stressors, or by shifting their metabolic curves to maximize their performance at extreme stressors). However, since there are links between fish physiology and behaviour, changes to either of these trait groups may have reciprocal interactions.

This paper reviews the current knowledge of the links between the behaviour and aerobic metabolic physiology of fishes, discusses these in the context of exploitation and climate change and makes recommendations for future research needs. The review revealed that our understanding of the links between fish behaviour and metabolic physiology is rudimentary. However, both are hypothesized to be linked to stress responses along the hypothalamic pituitary axis. The link between metabolic physiological capacity and behaviour is particularly important as both determine the response of an individual to a changing climate and are under selection by fisheries. While, it appears that all types of capture fisheries are likely to reduce the adaptive potential of fished populations to climate stressors, angling, which is primarily associated with recreational fishing, may induce the separation of natural populations by removing individuals with bold behavioural traits and potentially the physiological traits required to facilitate behavioural change. Future research should focus on assessing how the links between metabolic physiological capacity and behaviour influence catchability, the response to climate change drivers and post-release recovery. The plasticity of phenotypic traits should be examined under a range of stressors of differing intensity, in several species and life history stages. Future studies should also assess plasticity (fission or fusion) in the phenotypic structuring of social hierarchy and how this influences habitat selection. Ultimately, to fully understand how physiology is influenced by the selective processes driven by fisheries, long-term monitoring of the physiological and behavioural structure of fished populations, their fitness and catch rates are required. This will provide information that can be used by managers to retain behavioural and physiological trait diversity, which will be necessary to improve the resilience of fished populations to the impacts of climate change and safeguard the provision of resources for future generations.

WMU Capacity-Building Project to Progress the Implementation of International Instruments to Combat IUU Fishing

Among many of the interesting and “unusual” jobs, I did last year, was to be a presenter at the 1st Capacity-Building Project to Progress the Implementation of International Instruments to Combat IUU Fishing (CAPFISH), organised by the World Maritime University. Next week I’ll be involved in the 2nd one.

My involvement came via an invitation from Francis Neat Professor, Sustainable Fisheries Management, Ocean Biodiversity and Marine Spatial Planning there and the Nippon Foundation Chair, whom I’m extremely thankful for the opportunity

It was an amazing experience to share the presenter role with very well known and qualified academics and officers of international organizations like UBC’s U. Rashid Sumaila, ILO Brandt Wagner, EU’s IUU policy Roberto Cesari, my former colleagues from FAO Matthew Camilleri, Alicia Mosteiro and Ari Gudmundsson and Jung-re Riley Kim,  she is one of the people I have learned to admire the most over the last years of WCPFC meetings since she the chair of all the main meetings (she is a Policy Officer of Korea’s Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries). Her impeccable style and professionalism have impressed me so much during the facilitation and management of the meetings… honestly, I was just stoked to be next to her in the programme! Particularly since I’m the only one of the 27 scholars presenting that is not affiliated with an institution

I always was interested in the WMU, in fact, is the kind of place I would love to have the opportunity to study… their PhD in Maritime Affairs is one that I have been aiming for years… but as self-employed is impossible since I need to work to live and the costs of studying there, while accessible are not cheap.  Yet if you have the opportunity to get a scholarship via your employer I totally recommend you give it a go, the faculty is impressive!

Anyway, the report of the1st workshop was very complimentary of my presentation and I quote it below… I really really looking forwards to the next one next week!

Mr. Blaha delivered an engaging presentation on IUU fishing in the Western Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishery, with many practical lessons centred around regional cooperation for developing countries. He began by noting that, while the states in this region are often seen as Small Island Developing States, they are in reality large ocean nations. They are also members of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). 

The region is vast and boasts one of the largest fisheries in the world. Fisheries are absolutely key in this area, with the majority of government revenue in many states coming from fishing, and communities relying on fisheries for jobs, livelihoods and food security. Fisheries management is consequently taken very seriously and none of the major tuna stocks in the region are considered to be overfished or subject to overfishing. 

Every five years FFA conducts a study quantifying IUU fishing in the region. The 2016 study confirmed that the key threat to the region was from unreported fishing from licensed vessels, rather than illegal fishing. However, the 2021 update demonstrated a 50% reduction in the level of unreported catch, mainly thanks to better coordination and monitoring efforts by countries in the region. The FFA members have pooled their efforts and resources to create a unique set of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) tools, particularly those focused on tracking vessels in local waters. Together with larger states with interests in the region, such as Australia, New Zealand, the USA and France, they undertake joint surveillance operations over the entirety of the Western and Central Pacific. Other important initiatives include observer programmes, use and development of electronic reporting and monitoring mechanisms, and the development and consistent application of the Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions for Access by Fishing Vessels. In 2020, the Harmonized Terms also incorporated the labour standards of the Work in Fishing Convention, requiring vessels to comply with these standards before being issued fishing licenses. 

Nevertheless, challenges remain in managing such a large fishery. These include data management, difficulties in monitoring high seas transshipments, the need to keep up with increasing efficiency of fishing operations, under-resourcing of fisheries administrations, climate change, subsidies, and geopolitical issues which arise when dealing with distant water fishing fleets. 

Mr. Blaha also suggested that there is a need to attract more diversity and new ways of thinking when dealing with the complex issue of fisheries management.

Understanding and implementing CDS – A guide for national authorities

I was neck-deep into the Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS) world until 4 years ago, when I took a step back as here in the Pacific it was getting into the institutional positioning side of issues and they were walking away from a “centralised” repository of transactions (which for me is a key element for it to work, and I have written about) so I decided to move aside, do not compromise my beliefs, respond if asked, do technical support and focus on good PSM (which for me is another a prerequisite for a CDS to work)… in this area, the work we have done with the Marshall Islands has been a highlight of my career.

Everything starts here

I did a couple of FAO assignments on side topics (blockchain use) and in 2020 worked on the huge identification of “Critical Tracking Events (CTEs) and Key Data Elements (KDEs) along with the wild capture and aquaculture value chains” that are still being workshopped and discussed at FAO level.

So yeah… after 12 years of experience with the EU Catch Certification Scheme, my involvement in the FAO CDS guidelines, books written about it, advisor roles for institutions… and so on, still atopic i’m really keen to moving forwards, so I keep my eyes close to the game but not really playing it, while everyone just talks and argues… I like more operational jobs.

And generally, my criticism of many initiatives in the last years  is that they are “theoretical’ or just reinvent the wheel, by repeating how good it would be to have CDS… in fact, to have a CDS is one of the recommendations of the IUU quantification study we published this year 

For me, the reason why we don't have a multilateral, interconnected CDS system that would work as the accountancy systems for fisheries, is political decision one and not a technological one… we could borrow from banking and customs and come up with something that will work, surely will take time and mistakes, but it will work.

So when a while ago my friend and college Shelley Clarke chatted to me about a new FAO assignment she had on CDS booklet “Understanding and implementing catch documentation schemes – A guide for national authorities” I knew it would fill a niche that was needed.

Shelley is amazing, she knows her stuff and is a gifted writer (I wish I was 25% as good as she is, so my professional life would be much easier!) hence it does not come as a surprise that this publication is excellent and recommendable if you have an interest in all CDS things! 

Her document seeks to align and improve existing national monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) tools, as well as product tracking systems, in order to support more effective national CDS implementation and strengthen CDS throughout the international supply chain. 

The document contains chapters on the legal and policy background to CDS, an introduction to the features and requirements of existing schemes, as well as guidance on how to handle CDS information requirements and identify national key data elements. Finally, it provides a series of exercises for assessing relevant national capabilities and coordination processes, including the management and exchange of information.

I fully agree with the approaches and solutions she presents and the analysis of shortcomings of the present systems, and the need to be proactive.  

Her work parallels and cements a lot of my views, that I wish I was able to articulate as clearly as she does! (and I also really appreciate the various mention of my work with Gilles Hosch and Ken Katafono in the references and the fact that her work strengthen my position on PSM and a central repository of transactions)

I recommend you download and read the original, I just quote the conclusion here:

Catch documentation schemes cannot single-handedly stamp out IUU fishing. They rely on other monitoring, control and surveillance systems to generate information about the legal provenance of catches, and depend on product-level tracking systems to prevent the mixing of illegal and legal catch throughout the supply chain. In providing a framework for the compilation and sharing of legal provenance data, CDS represent an opportunity for cooperation and collaboration between different States along the seafood supply chain. Strengthening each State’s contribution to that framework therefore strengthens the system as a whole.

In their day-to-day participation in CDS, States face an array of choices which balance risk, cost and other factors. They must determine how and when data are collected and provided; what quality assurance underlies the data; and how such data are stored in order to respond to queries. 

States may aim to: meet the minimum standards of the CDS in which they are currently participating, uphold a higher standard required by the more advanced of the existing CDS (in the event that their fisheries or markets expand), or go beyond all of the existing CDS to anticipate future standards. Those that are proactive can protect the value of certified catch for their stakeholders, and avoid the broad-scale reputational damage of being associated with IUU fishing activities.

 This analysis has presented several ways that national authorities can assess their tools and systems against CDS requirements in order to identify issues and formulate actions to address them. These include identifying national catch tracking KDEs, evaluating national fish product tracking systems, assessing verification tools and systems, and weighing the benefits and costs of expanding CDS coverage. States which undertake these kinds of exercises not only stand to improve their own national systems, but will also set higher benchmarks for the ongoing evolution and expansion of CDS. Continuing improvement in the documentation of legal provenance, both CDS and its implementation at the national level, will serve as a potent deterrent to persistent IUU fishing activities.

what motivates fishers to share catch information?

Any paper that has in the abstract this paragraph: 

While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to designing and implementing information sharing schemes in fisheries, this paper highlights how industry and stakeholder support is often important, and understanding the needs, concerns, and motivations of any group of fishers is fundamental in developing and expanding such approaches. 

Does immediately call my attention…

@franciscoblaha - Mozambique

As ex-industry I have always been interested in industry involvement in research and compliance… which is to be driven by incentives.

The whole idea that people should do things because they have been told to do so, does never sits well with most people and even less with quite independent (and authority resistant) people like fishers… yet convince me that what is done has a benefit in terms of making me more money or saving me money… and I change in seconds.

For example, if my fishing access costs (licences, permits, VDS, etc) were prorated to my level of compliance, i.e. the more compliant I am are the less I pay… then I have a direct incentive to comply.

For example here in the Pacific FFA maintains a vessel compliance index (from 0: good to -5: terrible) calculated and assigned to a Vessel based on how compliant a Vessel is over a period of time. So if you were to give good vessels a 20% discount for example and bad vessels a 50% increase… I guarantee in 2-3 years they are all in -1 to -2.  Or with EM… if you have EM on board, we allow you use of the footage so you talk to the insurance companies for a lowering of premiums based on footage sharing when needed… for example.

Anyway… you get my drift.

The paper is called “An evaluation of information sharing schemes to identify what motivates fishers to share catch information”. The paper compiles information from 15 case study examples of existing information-sharing schemes in fisheries throughout the world. They compare the structure and operation of each of these schemes and determine what motivated participants to join and share potentially sensitive catch information. 

 I really liked this paper! As someone that has worked in fisheries in around 50 countries… I see it as almost a study that could have gone into the areas of anthropology and cultural understanding of authority and relationship to peers

As always read the original! (And big thank you to the lead author, Julia Calderwood for sending me a copy) 

Below I just quote the conclusions

From all of the examples in this paper, it is clear that there is no one size fits all solution for designing and incentivizing participation in catch sharing and bycatch avoidance schemes. There certainly may be more success in at least achieving longevity in information sharing schemes where data collection on bycatch is mandatory within a fishery, as in the US examples, rather than voluntary, as in many European fisheries. Trust between participants and willingness to join in schemes may also be more likely when there are already established relationships of fishers working together, through a co-operative for example. Additional incentives may be required to encourage data collection and information sharing, especially where data collection is voluntary. Yet there were examples of the use of additional incentives across both schemes with mandatory and voluntary data collection, and an additional reward may be required to increase bycatch avoidance behaviours regardless. It is clear that these incentives and rewards need to be sufficient to outweigh the time and burden of providing information and of avoiding unwanted catches. There is also evidence across a number of the schemes that it is important to ensure sharing of information does not reduce an individual’s competitive edge in a fishery. The importance of anonymity was evident across a majority of the case studies. Assurances that information sharing will not result in harsher restrictions or individual penalties may also be important for some.

All of these factors need to be considered when designing and implementing any form of information sharing scheme in fisheries, as industry buy-in is essential (O’Keefe and DeCelles, 2013). Despite this seeming like an almost impossible balancing act, many of the examples in this paper demonstrate that it is possible to design schemes which have industry support. It is clear, however, that it is important to avoid making assumptions about what will motivate fishers to participate in information sharing schemes. This highlights a need for more research to be focused on better understanding these motivations, which could be achieved through directly asking and interviewing those who have shared catch information to reflect on their experiences. Taking a collaborative approach, when designing and implementing such schemes, is also vital to fully understand the needs, concerns, and motivations of any group of fishers, which is certainly fundamental in adopting and expanding such approaches.