of the estimated 100000 fisherman deaths a year , 98% are artisanal and subsistence fishermen, of which 63% occur in inland waters of Africa, the most unfairly treated continent in the world”

I’ve known the good people of the Fish Safety Foundation for a while (NZ is not a big place) and they are committed to the cause. Is hard not be overwhelmed by their reporting of 100000 fishermen diying a year. Is a huge number, and each of them is a tragedy in itself. As a former fisherman that had to bring dead crew members back to shore, the grief I’ve seen in the relatives' eyes is something that will live with me forever.

Of course, as soon as you read the report, you undertand the limitations they faced in reaching those figures but most importantly, the geographical and type of fisheries distribution of these deaths the picture becomes clearer.

Unfortunately, the figure seems to be immediately associated with deaths in commercial fishing and blamed on the rampant IUU fishing… as if there were no people working on fisher safety, rights and IUU fishing anywhere. 

The table above is already telling you that 98000 (98%) of those deaths come from artisanal and inland fisheries in Africa. I’m not going to dwell on the difficulties faced in Africa for generations and generations since colonialism and the lack of resources and opportunities. While working there and witnessing the conditions and crafts the subsistence fisherman use, the very few enforcement capacities of fishing authorities and the absolute lack of political will by some of the authorities I worked with to reign on DWFN on their EEZ… the total share of those deaths in sadly not surprising.

So in this post, I’ll tell you what the situation is in the area I work and know: the Pacific. In terms of small scale fisheries, the bulk of the work done here has been led by SPC and FAO. Already a deep dive into the situation was done in 1991 by my friend Mike McCoy for FAO. Since then a lot of work has been done in 5 key areas

• Sensitising fishery managers that sea safety is a legitimate and important objective of fisheries  management

• Focusing more attention on small fishing vessel safety.

• Improving systems for recording/analysing sea accident data and making use of the results  

• Awareness programmes

• Regional sea safety workshops

While not perfect, it has worked over the years, and with the use of substantial efforts by Search and Rescue Support by NZ and Aus assets and the use of commercial fishing vessels. And there is plenty more that can be found, in fact as recently as this year, I propose working with newer technologies and using sail for emergency rigs.

I do take a strong interest in the drivers for fishers taking risks, and the authors of the report go deep in that. And I agree with them: Governance, IUU, Sustainability, Climate Change, and Poverty have a massive role in it (I also would have included culture winch, from my own experience, is influenced by poverty – you have nothing to lose when you have nothing)

However, I believe that the influence of each of these drivers is also regionally varied… their individual and combined influence in Eastern Africa may not be the same as that in Western Africa, which then will be different in SE Asia and definitively in the Pacific.

And here I take a HUGE issue with a briefing by PEW on this report, one that makes me rethink the collaborations I had with them so far.

For some reason, they have a massive dig at the Pacific Islands, which are barely touched the Fish Safety report and quoting a reference that not even the original, and they state:  

an estimated 24% of Pacific marine catch is underreported each year—with half of that underreported catch reaching international markets

as to justify the comparatively few deaths in the region, on IUU fishing

That figure is demonstrably not true and is based on desktop research that mixes SE Asia with the Pacific. A much fairer quite would have been to quote FFA’s IUU quantification report 2022, a report done by the people that is the forefront to the IUU issues in the region,  where “total annual volume of the product either harvested or transhipped involving IUU activity in Pacific tuna fisheries during the 2017-19 period was 192,186t, with 90% confidence that the actual figure lies within a range of 183,809t to 200,884t” which is substantially less than the 12% they quote reaching the international market.

As said, no issue with the FISH safety report itself, but again I take issue with the usual framing and quoting of their findings by environmental, philanthropic, and media organisations' to shame and further marginalise the thousands that I know and work with, and whose life is devoted to manage fisheries, control IUU and uphold the rights of fisherman.

A much fairer quote needs to be “new study found that of the estimated 100000 fisherman deaths a year , 98% are artisanal and subsistence fishermen, of which 63% occur in inland waters of Africa, the most unfairly treated continent in the world” so this is the one I’m using.

What impact could a red card to Panama will have in the tuna industry?

Panama has been on my mind lately, as I heard rumours that the EU’s DG MARE is brewing a red card for them. Let's get clear that Panama is a flag of convenience / open registry (this article gives some further context on Panama)

124 more of these around… surprisingly no panamenians on board 🙄

Panama had a yellow card in 2012 (lifted in 2024) and the 2nd one in 2019, which didn’t focussed them at all… in fact, right now, I’m following a Panamian carrier we suspect of setting FADs (something they are not licenced to do and is double bad since we are in FAD closure in the WCPFC. Panama, as flag state is responsible, but no answer to queries

Carriers don do stuff like that twice in the same area with 5 months dfifference (and wasn’t weather is over 10kts avg speed)

The forte of Panama in the RFMOs is that it is the preferred flag for carriers and some longliners… but mostly carriers… 125 in the WCPFC alone to be precise.

So Let's imagine that Panama I indeed identified as a non-cooperative third country... among other reasons, due to the lack of control over their flag vessels, and ergo gets the “red card” 

The usual reading of (EC) No. 1005/2008 is that fishery products caught by fishing vessels under the flag of the non-cooperative state do not have access to the EC as they could not provide catch certificates. 

Now... nothing that 1005/2008 defines:

‘fishing vessel’ means any vessel of any size used or intended for use for the purposes of commercial exploitation of fishery resources, including support ships, fish processing vessels, vessels engaged in transhipment and carrier vessels equipped for the transportation of fishery products, except container vessels;

The declaration of "non-cooperating" to Panama would not affect the capture products of other "cooperating" states that are transshipped to Panamanian carriers.

Article 38 - Measures applicable to non-cooperating third countries only says in this regard:

1) the importation into the Community of fishery products caught by fishing vessels flying the flag of such countries shall be prohibited, and accordingly, catch certificates accompanying such products shall not be accepted.

Therefore, it reads NO effect since the catch certificate is issued by the flag state, and the carrier only acted as a transporter, despite falling under the definition of a fishing vessel.

The exciting thing here is that a Taiwanese or Chinese-owned vessel transshipping to a Panamanian would not be affected, but one owned by a Spanish or French national vessel would be, based on the same Article 38, 

6) private trade arrangements between nationals of a Member State and such countries in order for a fishing vessel flying the flag of that Member State to use the fishing possibilities of such countries shall be prohibited; 

A red that only affects the catches by Panamanian vessels would be a blow to some longliners, but the inclusion of carriers would make them immediately leave the Panamanian registry (I suppose they will go to the Liberian 🥺) and would wreck the WCPO tuna industry for a little while until all carriers are re-registered and so on...

In hindsight would be awesome that a red card means all fish that touch vessels with that flag become ineligible for the EU… but at present other than Panama losing face (not that they care)… no changes I’m afraid.

FIPs: A voluntary, corporate “tool” not fit for mitigating labour abuses

Been waiting for this paper for a bit (as I got to see an early draft and really liked it) but also because I got the do one of my 1st boardings in almost 3 years on a jewel of a vessel, the way all vessels could look like and people on board should be cared for.

As for the paper is written by 2 people I have corresponded with in the past and truly respect; Chris Williams (ITF), and Jessica L. Decker Sparks (University of Nottingham & Tufts University): Fishery improvement projects: A voluntary, corporate “tool” not fit for the  purpose of mitigating labour abuses and guaranteeing labour rights for workers.

As usual, I recommend it you read it from the original that is for free

I just will quote some parts that really resonate to me… Starting with this jewel:

Voluntarisation is not a substitute for ratification, implementation, and enforcement of laws and policies pertaining to human and labour rights.

 Anyway, here I go

Abstract
The recent development of a Human Rights and Social Responsibility Policy for fishery improvement projects (FIPs) has accelerated industry and NGO-led initiatives to address human and labour rights violations in seafood supply chains through FIPs. However, this brief communication demonstrates that FIPs’ _social requirements, as currently constituted and reported, suffer from many of the same problems as other voluntary, market-based initiatives that fail to mitigate labour abuses. Examples of these shortcomings include the voluntarisation of what should be binding, international conventions and standards; moving benchmarks that lack meaning for workers; an absence of worker-defined remedy and recourse processes; and confusion around what actually constitutes a human rights due diligence process. In addition, social responsibility imperatives in FIPs present a new threat to the fight against labour abuses in supply chains in that they embrace and risk institutionalizing an ideology that moving towards, rather than complying with, fundamental human rights is acceptable.

Introduction
In the context of weak or absent regulatory environments, private sector, market-based initiatives (e.g., buyer commitments, certifications, and labelling) have increasingly been touted as an alternative mechanism for mitigating a range of labour and human rights abuses in seafood supply chains. Therefore, the recent addition of a ‘social’ _component and remit as a fundamental objective of fishery improvement projects (FIPs) – _on equal footing with improvements in stock biomass or fishing gears used– may sound like a necessary change to achieve a truly sustainable fishery. However, in this short communication, we highlight why FIPs, as currently constituted and reported, will not be an effective part of the fight

FIPs, though, share many of the same features that make these other voluntary measures ineffective, namely they restrict the application of international standards by “voluntarising” _them, rely on self-reporting or flawed third-party social audits, lack enforcement mechanisms and pathways to remedy harm to workers, and fail to center the workers themselves in governance and remedies, choosing instead to simply report on them.

Progress or compliance – a false dichotomy

FIPs are differentiated from certifications in that market incentives are delivered and distributed for progress toward a benchmark, not just when the benchmark has been attained – _this further weakens what FIPs could achieve as minimal progress (however measured) that would suffice. This is the foundational, conceptual problem: a fishery or buyer cannot make progress or demonstrate continuous improvement or movement toward upholding fundamental human rights – _you are either compliant or non-compliant. Freedom from slavery and servitude is specifically articulated in Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [19] – _and thus progress towards a ‘best practice’ _of eliminating forced labour, debt bondage, human trafficking, or modern slavery in a supply chain is in contravention of this and other international conventions. Further, the notion of movement towards human and labour rights improvements creates artificial benchmarks that facilitate colonialist and oppressive comparisons (i.e., FIP A in Europe has less forced labour than that FIP B in South America) and prioritizations. This begs the question of how much forced labour is a supply chain actor willing to tolerate in the name of progress? If a FIP reduces the number of cases of forced labour from 50 to 49 cases per year that could arguably constitute progress; yet, at the same time many supply chain actors will declare they have zero tolerance for forced labour. It is impossible to have both zero tolerance and continuous improvement policies, again a false dichotomy.

Fish or fisher first in FIPs?
FIPs are often applauded for the diversity of their geographic scales [4], but this actually creates challenges for labour and human rights governance. Because FIPs always start from a boundary of the fishery, with human and labour rights being added-on, a FIP is typically not tied to labour governance models and regimes as their governance model follows fish, not people. The foundational International Labour Organization’s Work in Fishing Convention (ILO C188) provides a comprehensive framework for regulating work on fishing vessels [1]. While a flag state does have to ratify C188, and uptake has been slow, a buyer can still request that a vessel owner provide working conditions equivalent with ILO C188′s minimum standards under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) article 94′s obligations of conduct, which is widely ratified. Instead, FIPs make no such demand from buyers. They are neither aligned with, nor seek to enhance mechanisms to ensure that the flag state is compliant with its social responsibilities under UNCLOS. This may actually be perpetuating the aforementioned voluntarisation of binding international conventions, weakening access to labour justice. Without being tied to established labour governance models, this further limits opportunities for remediation – a guaranteed labour right and requirement of ILO C188, not a voluntary or best practice option.

Conclusion
FIPs seek to incentivize sustainable fishing through enhanced commercial market access, effectively to benefit retailers, importers, processors, and others in seafood supply chains – _but with little or no, involvement of workers or labour unions. The beneficiaries are the private sector and the producers with direct links to supply chains, rather than those working onboard the vessels. NGOs also benefit through reputational and financial gains if FIPs are successful. At present, FIPs cannot contribute to a decent work agenda since there is no current mechanism for the inclusion of the needs or necessary improvements in conditions for workers or the input of labour unions into the improvement of the fishery in a legally binding manner. FIPs have no tripartite structure and are voluntarising hard fought human and labour rights, providing a ‘get-out’ for seafood buyers. Interventions that solely focus on increasing fishing profitability can actually increase fisher/worker vulnerability. FIP proponents must broaden the scope of benefits delivered directly as part of a decent work agenda, going beyond the scope of what is considered ‘rational investment’ _by private sector actors in the supply chain. There is no business case for ending exploitation, so this is not the correct means to approach the problem. Market-based pressures can be effective (see worker-driven social responsibility programs), but they cannot be effective as currently conceived in FIPs because they are not binding on retailers and lack fixed benchmarks. Instead of investing in more FIPs, financial investments from retailers would be better used supporting price premiums that are guaranteed to be passed to workers’ _wages. While all businesses must be required to engage in HRDD in a way that is meaningful for and inclusive of workers, a voluntary FIP option distracts from that requirement. The need for a structure wherein actors at the top of the supply chain financially and logistically support improvements throughout, cannot be conflated with FIPs’ false notions of continuous progress. FIPs, as currently designed, will only yield benefits for companies and their NGO partners – not the fishers they purportedly intend to help.

—

Added to this paper is the fact that I’m back in Majuro after almost 3yrs of absence, and very happy to be back in reality. My 1st boarding was this beautiful vessel under the command of my friend Josu.

It is quite incredible… only once before I been to a vessel with such a good level of comfort, safety, maintenance, care for the crew, first aid room with telemedicine, internet for communication, solid salaries, food, and so on… everything is clean, and people is genuinely happy on board.

And if these guys can fish and make money… then why is the rest of the fleet is sooo crappy and pay shit to the crew…

Don't tell me that is subsidies… because the subsidies they have by the flag state are less than the rest of the fleet of the countreis and devided amon at leats 20 nations.

It makes me really happy for the people on board this vessel and sad for the rest of the vessels in the fleet I get to board… most of them very shitty while being certified or on FIPs.

 See for your self the conditions

Labour Standards on Fishing Boats, my presentation at the World Tuna Trade Conference

I’m on my way home after my presentation at TUNA 2022, the 17th INFOFISH World Tuna Trade Conference and Exhibition in Bangkok, Thailand.

I always struggle with these events as there are not what I'm used to, but it is good to see people again.

As many asked me for my presentation, I pasted it here below, they reflect a lot of the views and references I wrote about before

I reminded people that it is because of fishermen, we are all here in this event. I ended it with a quote by Arundhati Roy I read not long time ago, which is quite pertinent.

"There's really no such thing as the voiceless. There are only the deliberately silenced or the preferably unheard."

On becoming trained as inspector of labour conditions on board FV by the ILO.

As I did with most things in fisheries, I started doing the job, then got into the rules, and then got involved with the regulators. As my work gets more involved in the labour side (written a lot about it already) and many skills are transferable, I decided to get a qualification directly from the ILO as an inspector on labour conditions on board fishing vessels. So besides knowing about the issue but having been a fisherman and having written for FAO and published academically on the topic, I can speak now with some authority as an ILO-trained inspector.

 I personally believe that if you want to be helpful in a complex problem like fisher’s labour rights, you need to see it from all angles and be adequately qualified. Pointing the finger at a problem only, shaming the people working on it and expecting them to fix it tomorrow with very few resources may give you media exposure but does not fix the issue.

As with most things in fisheries, is not a lack of regulatory frameworks but a lack of implementation and, in particular by the DWFN that has the opportunity to lead, but also by some developing states that are important flag states due to the lack of capacity. 

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’). 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. 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.

A lot of the specifics are regulated UN specialised agencies (I have been working with FAO for over 30 years) on the labour side is the ILO, which is the only tripartite UN agency that brings together governments, employers and workers to set labour standards, develop policies and devise programmes to promote decent work for all people.

The ILO has been engaged in promoting decent working conditions on board ships and fishing vessels, including through the adoption of international instruments. The Maritime Labour Convention of 2006 establishes minimum international requirements for seafarers’ employment and working conditions, although fishing vessels are specifically exempt from the Convention.20 This gap in scope was filled to a large extent by the ILO Convention concerning Work in the Fishing Sector (‘Work in Fishing Convention C188’), and its accompanying Recommendation concerning Work in the Fishing Sector, both of which came into force in November 2017.

The Work in Fishing Convention seeks to ensure decent work in fishing and — together with the Protocol to the Forced Labour Convention — should provide a comprehensive framework for regulating working conditions and protecting migrant workers on foreign-flagged vessels operating in distant fisheries. It places overall responsibility for working conditions on the owner of the fishing vessel, while skippers are responsible for the safety of fishers on board and for the safety of the vessel.

In many respects, the Work in Fishing Convention parallels the Maritime Labour Convention. However, with only 19 ratifications, it does not have sufficient parties to be considered a ‘generally accepted’ international regulation to which states are required to conform under art 94(5) of UNCLOS. None of the major distant water fishing nations are party. This is significant given the emphasis in the Convention on the primacy of flag state jurisdiction for enforcement purposes.

And honestly, this is pathetic… we have binding measures for the protection and welfare of many species of fish… but not one for fishermen. And while we are working on that at the regional level via FFA and the WCPFC, nothing replaces Flag state responsibility and enforcement.

And when you dive into detail into C188… is not really impossible… is honestly the very basics that any job shall require… yet, as usual, it seems that fishers are considered as being deserving of what jobs on land take for granted.

The Convention addresses issues essential to ensuring decent work on fishing vessels. For example, it:

• establishes the responsibilities of fishing vessel owners and skippers for the safety of fishers on board and for the safety of the vessels (Article 8);

• sets a minimum age for work on board fishing boats and requires special protection for young fishers (Article 9);

• requires fishers to undergo periodic examinations of their medical fitness for work on fishing vessels (Articles 10-12);

• requires that fishing vessels are sufficiently and efficiently manned (crewed), are under the control of a competent skipper, and that the fishers on board are provided sufficient rest periods (Articles 13-14);

• requires fishing vessels to have a crew list and fishers to have the protection of a signed work agreement, setting out the terms of the work they are performing (Articles 15-20, and Annex II);

• entitles fishers to be repatriated when their agreements expire and for other reasons, and prohibits making fishers pay to obtain their jobs, or blacklisting them (Articles 21-22);

• addresses how fishers are paid and that they shall have the means to send money home to their families at no cost (Article 23-24);

• sets standards for living accommodation and food on board (Articles 25-28, and Annex III);

• establishes requirements for occupational safety and health, as well as a basic level of medical care on fishing vessels; (Articles 31-    33);

• ensures that fishers benefit from social security protection no less favourable than that provided to other workers in their country; and, at a minimum, provides protection in cases of their work-related sickness, injury or death (Articles 34-39).

These are, of course, only some of the main ideas, with the details provided in the Articles noted above.

The Convention provides for higher requirements for certain vessels (e.g., larger vessels at sea for longer periods) and exceptions for other vessels (e.g., smaller vessels operating closer to port or at sea for short periods). It also sets out how the requirements of the Convention are to be complied with and enforced (Articles 40-44).

The Convention makes it clear that the fishing vessel's owner is ultimately responsible for conditions of work on board the vessel. It provides that: The fishing vessel owner is responsible for ensuring that the skipper is provided with the necessary resources and facilities to comply with the obligations of this Convention.

The skipper (the person in charge of a vessel) has his or her own responsibilities. The Convention provides that: The skipper is responsible for the safety of the fishers on board and the vessel's safe operation. These responsibilities are spelled out in more detail in Article 8

I’ll write more details on another post, but yeah, I’m looking forwards to doing more in this field.

Annual Report on WCPFC Transhipment Reporting

 As usual, at this time of the year before the Technical and Compliance Committee, we get very good reports from the WCPFC secretariat.

One of the most frustrating for me to read is this one. Particularly when I just had a go a couple of weeks ago at this in terms of HS transhipments observers.

I wrote ad nausea of the impracticability exemption and how much has been abused… this does not change, unfortunately

Impracticability bullshit…As you can see most of the transipmemnts in the HS take place just out of the EEZ pure hypocressy by the transhipping nations

The report is there to read and free to download from the commission webpage. I just will quote some of the things that strike the most. 

• In 2021, 62 % of vessels from 9 CCMs were listed on the RFV as authorised to tranship in the high seas, 85% of which are longliners.

• The 1,007 transhipment events reported to WCPFC in 2021 is 87% of the transhipments in 2020 and 69% of the transhipments in 2018/2019

• The Commission intersessional decisions also suspended the requirement to have an observer on board either the carrier or the fishing vessel to observe transhipments from 27 May 2020 to 15 June but with a transitional period from 15 June – 31 December 2022 during which time CCMs should make best efforts to embark observers following agreed guidelines. In 2021, the level of unobserved transhipments increased to 88% in 2021.

• Bigeye and yellowfin tuna make up the bulk of species transhipped, representing, respectively, 34% and 28% of the 2021 provisional longline catch.

the usual supects

• Information on the location and species mix of transhipments shows distinct changes over the last 6 years, with transhipments now more focused in the central and east Pacific.

• Comparison of transhipment locations with catch per unit effort data indicates a potential relationship with higher areas of bigeye effort.

• There were no new cases of alleged violations of Compliance CMM2009-06 in 2021 or 2022.

• Secretariat analytical processes to identify possible issues with reporting of transhipments e.g. comparisons across datasets, are proving useful but resource constraints in 2020 and 2021 have limited further refinement.

• The main species transhipped in 2021 was bigeye and albacore which represented 34.3 % and 27.5% of the provisional longline catch estimates for that year. In 2020, these species represented 31% of the catch.

Functional Longlining Fleets across the Pacific

While all fishing gears have advantages and disadvantages (like everything else in life!) I have a special thing for longline…. While in most gears, physics and oceanography (they are closely related), the longline has a lot of chemistry… I explored that in my thesis on the development of a selective bait for the Longlining Fishery of Snapper (Pagrus auratus) and maintained an interest in it over the years, as you can read here, here, here and all over here, just to mention a few…, yet always from the perspective of understanding how a longliner catches a group of fishes but never thought on how longlines fish as a group.

So when I was approached by Tim Frawley (whose work I already blogged about here) to be involved in a paper he was writing with others on longliner fleet operations across the pacific, I was immediately interested. And finally, the paper was published (my 3rd paper in 3 years), and on top of that got published on my birthday!

From management, we see longlining in an almost binary approach: tropical and southern. In zone or HS, landing or transhipping… yet the reality is much more complex because longliners are never just one thing catching one type of fish in one place… reality ought to be more complex… and it is… substantially more complex!

Despite their value and ocean impacts, many longline fisheries remain opaque, so we characterised and analysed 11 distinct fishing fleets across the Pacific using public data sources.

In any case , and as usual, I recommend you read the original: Clustering of disaggregated fisheries data reveals functional longline fleets across the Pacific, as it is free. I just will quote the key parts of it, as I’m quite proud of my minimal role in this paper.

With improvements in technology, big ocean data are increasingly used to describe ocean uses and prioritize management action. Within fisheries, much of the discourse to date has concerned the identification of flag states responsible for illegal fishing and/or interactions with protected species. Yet, little guidance exists regarding how recent advances can be leveraged to inform the development of sustainable and equitable harvest-control rules. Here we link vessel movement and registration data with catch reports to characterize “functional fishing fleets” across the Pacific.

Considering the strengths and limitations of each data source, we argue they are more valuable when used collectively to support the evolution of existing management operations than as the sum of their parts deployed in isolation. Indeed, the future sustainability of high seas fisheries may hinge on increased cooperation and transparency required to harness and democratize the benefits of the digital ocean ecosystem for improved governance.

Summary

Ensuring the long-term sustainability of tuna, billfish, and other transboundary fisheries resources begins with data on the status of stocks, as well as information concerning who catches what fish, when, where, and how. Despite recent improvements in fisheries monitoring and surveillance, such dynamics remain poorly understood across the high seas. Here we delineate and describe pelagic longline activity in the Pacific Ocean using a framework that integrates descriptive vessel information and tracking data with species-specific catch reports.

When parsed by distinct vessel behaviors and attributes, disaggregated fisheries data highlight the existence of multi-national, multi-specific (i.e., targeting multiple species) fishing fleets, many of which target waters that span more than one management area.

Our findings emphasize the need for increased coordination across regional and sub-regional governance bodies and suggest that effective and equitable management of the sector may require efforts to move beyond single-species, single-area controls and operational distinctions based primarily on vessel flag and/or gear type alone.

Conclusions and future directions

This characterization of the activity patterns of pelagic longline fishing fleets in the Pacific is just the beginning of a more nuanced understanding of the sector. Undoubtedly, as data quantity, quality, and availability increase, additional fleets with unique behaviors and attributes will emerge from those we have described.

Nevertheless, our results provide valuable evidence of the utility of disaggregated fisheries analyses that integrate descriptive vessel information and tracking data with catch reports to identify and describe the behaviors and attributes of distinct fishing fleets. In the future, such classified groups have great potential to serve as a foundation for a more differentiated and targeted approach to fisheries research, monitoring, and management. Across other disciplines, the utility of disaggregated units is already recognized as critical for the monitoring and management of human-environment interactions.

For transboundary fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, fleet-disaggregated analyses could be used to:

1. Address the differential effects of time/area closures and catch quotas,

2. Analyze the competition for space among sectors (i.e., large-scale versus small-scale, longline versus purse-seine) and emerging ocean users (i.e., offshore wind farms and deep-sea mining claims),

3. Study the socioeconomic attributes and/or environmental associations of different fishing livelihood strategies,

4. Estimate bycatch and non-target species interactions, and

5. Audit self-reported logbook records.

Given the degree to which concerns regarding the relative distribution of costs and benefits continue to impede the adoption of pelagic longline management and conservations measures and recent research regarding the asymmetrical impacts of climate change on regional fishery landings and revenue, we suggest such applications are particularly salient for transboundary fisheries across the Pacific.

EEZ-adjacent DWF from a coastal and flag State perspective

One of the areas that I had the interest in exploring for a while now (and it was a catalyser for me to get to the Rhodes Academy) is the legal “tension” between flag states and coastal states… and the areas of my work where is more palpable are: #1) who is responsible for signing off catch certificates assuring the legality of catch, and #2) fishing and transhipping in the mile 201 (a problem we have in the Pacific in particular with transshipping in HS).

transhipping near someone’s EEZ sometime in the past

So with #2 in mind, I read with interest this recent paper by Millicent McCreath and Valentin Schatz, “EEZ-adjacent distant-water fishing as a global security challenge: An international law perspective”.  Their paper uses the tensions between China and Latin American coastal states (in particular, the Chinese squid fleet off Ecuador's and Peru EEZ)and analyses the security challenges posed by DWF from the perspective of international fisheries law.

While the paper goes on security and China, my much more modest interest is related to an interesting take in chapter 4, where they analyse the EEZ-adjacent DWF from a coastal State perspective and then from a flag State one.

From a fisheries and ocean law nerd perspective, it makes a very interesting read, so I take it on me to quote those two sections below! Yet as always! I recommend you read the original since it is totally worth it!

The legal regime for EEZ-adjacent fisheries

International fisheries law comprises a multilayered regime of binding and non-binding instruments of varying geographical and substantive scope, membership and content - all of which lay down rights and obligations of states and other entities (e.g., RFMOs) with respect to the conservation and management of marine capture fisheries. The legal regime applicable to EEZ-adjacent high seas fisheries is particularly complex, which renders an abstract description of this regime difficult. Against this background, the current analysis focuses on the most important instruments for the present purposes, taking the Chinese squid fisheries off the Pacific coast of Latin America as a case study.

For this purpose, this section briefly sketches the relevant substantive requirements imposed by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA), taking into account that not all relevant states are parties to both of these treaties.

EEZ-adjacent DWF from a coastal state perspective

In their EEZs, coastal states have sovereign rights “for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living”, including fisheries. As concretized by Articles 61 and 62 UNCLOS, these sovereign rights include the jurisdiction to prescribe laws and regulations concerning the conservation and management of fisheries in the EEZ. In return, Article 61 UNCLOS imposes conservation and management obligations on the coastal state and Article 62(2) UNCLOS obliges it to grant other states access to the surplus (if any) of the allowable catch. The extent of the coastal state’s EEZ fisheries jurisdiction has been addressed in a number of - sometimes contentious - decisions of international courts and tribunals, a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper.  In the context of EEZ-adjacent fisheries, both the geographical and subject-matter scope of the coastal state’s prescriptive jurisdiction are important.

With respect to geographical scope, the coastal state’s prescriptive EEZ fisheries jurisdiction is limited to its EEZ. In this respect, the wording of Article 56(1)(a) UNCLOS (‘[i]n the [EEZ], the coastal state has […] sovereign rights’) in conjunction with the definition and spatial extent of the EEZ stated in Articles 55 and 57 UNCLOS is clear. Coastal states lack EEZ-related jurisdiction to prescribe laws and regulations with respect to the fishing activities of foreign vessels in EEZ-adjacent high seas areas - even where straddling or highly migratory fish stocks within the meaning of Articles 63(2) and 64 UNCLOS, respectively, are concerned. That said, some categories of EEZ-adjacent fishing activity may call the clarity of this distinction (inside vs. outside of EEZ) into doubt. For example, a supply vessel might hover just outside the EEZ to receive transhipments from vessels fishing illegally in the EEZ, forming part of a joint operation. Alternatively, a vessel’s fishing gear (e.g., long-line, net, drifting fish aggregating device (FAD)) might be used in a fashion that results in the gear drifting into the EEZ in order to catch or attract fish that is later brought on board on the high seas. To what extent coastal states might be able to claim prescriptive jurisdiction over vessels located just outside the EEZ in such situations - invoking concepts such as the doctrine of constructive presence - remains an open question.

In terms of subject matter, coastal states may, for example, have an interest in requiring unlicensed foreign fishing vessels to notify entry into or transit through their EEZs, require such vessels to stow their fishing gear while in the EEZ, prove that any catch found on board does not originate from the EEZ, or provide near real-time vessel monitoring system (VMS) data. However, as mere transit as such cannot be classified as ‘fishing’ or ‘fishing-related’,  the extent of prescriptive coastal state jurisdiction over vessels in transit through the EEZ is a legally intricate matter in light of the due regard obligation of coastal states under Article 58(3) UNCLOS vis-à-vis the freedom of navigation of flag states in the EEZ under Article 58(1) UNCLOS. It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide an in-depth analysis of the legality of the various requirements that coastal states have enacted in their fisheries laws and regulations.

However, it should be noted that Goodman has shown in a comprehensive study of state practice that at least a certain degree of coastal state jurisdiction with respect to transiting fishing vessels has become recognized, which may be evidence of a shift towards a jurisdictional presumption in favour of the coastal state.  Support for this emergent principle may also be found in China’s reformed Rules on Distant Water Fishing of 2020, Article 32 of which requires Chinese fishing vessels to store their catches, stow their gear, and notify the coastal state in advance in accordance with relevant regulations.

It may be concluded that the geographical scope of the coastal state’s prescriptive fisheries jurisdiction in the EEZ is relatively inflexible, whereas its substantive scope has proved to be more flexible and open to expansive development through state practice, thereby improving the jurisdictional situation of the coastal state.

Whenever foreign vessels fish in the EEZ in violation of laws and regulations that the coastal state has adopted in accordance with its prescriptive jurisdiction, these fishing activities constitute illegal fishing under Para. 3.1.1 IPOA-IUU.  However, if the coastal state exceeds its jurisdiction, its laws and regulations are not opposable to (the vessels of) other states.

EEZ-adjacent DWF from a flag state perspective

EEZ-adjacent high seas fisheries are governed by Part VII of UNCLOS. Under Articles 87(1)(e) UNCLOS all (flag) states enjoy freedom of fishing on the high seas, which is, however, qualified to the extent that it is subject to various conservation and management obligations. Crucially, the right of all states to permit their nationals to fish on the high seas under Article 116 UNCLOS is subject to their treaty obligations (including, for example, the UNFSA or the constitutive instruments of RFMOs),  the ‘rights and duties as well as the interests of coastal states’ provided for, inter alia, in Article 63(2) UNCLOS (straddling stocks) and Article 64 UNCLOS (highly migratory stocks),  and the provisions of Section 2 in Part VII of UNCLOS.63 Articles 63(2) and 64 UNCLOS contain obligations of states fishing for straddling or highly migratory fish stocks to cooperate in the conservation and management of these stocks, either directly or - as is common practice today - through RFMOs.

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to describe the regime of high seas fisheries in detail,  a brief overview of the key obligations is in order. Article 117 UNCLOS establishes a duty of all states “to take, or to cooperate with other states in taking, such measures for their respective nationals as may be necessary for the conservation of the living resources of the high seas”. Article 118 UNCLOS contains an obligation of all states to “cooperate with each other in the conservation and management of living resources in the areas of the high seas”.

Article 119 UNCLOS provides more detailed standards for total allowable catches and other CMMs taken by states or RFMOs, including the obligation to “take measures which are designed, on the best scientific evidence available to the states concerned, to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield  [MSY]”.

The mentioned obligations to cooperate (Articles 63(2), 64, 117 and 118 UNCLOS) are further concretized and supplemented by the UNFSA, which aims “to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks through effective implementation of the relevant provisions of [UNCLOS]”.  

These two categories of fish stocks are by definition particularly relevant in the context of EEZ-adjacent fisheries as they straddle or migrate across EEZ boundaries with adjacent high seas areas and are thus particularly vulnerable to unilateral exploitation by irresponsible flag states. Article 5 UNFSA contains various conservation and management principles. Among these, the obligation to “apply the precautionary approach” under Articles 5(c) and 6 UNFSA is particularly notable, but others are equally important in the present context: the obligations to “protect biodiversity in the marine environment” (Article 5(g) UNFSA) and to “take measures to prevent or eliminate overfishing and excess fishing capacity and to ensure that levels of fishing effort do not exceed those commensurate with the sustainable use of fishery resources” (Article 5(h) UNFSA) are relevant examples. While these obligations only directly bind States Parties to the UNFSA (i.e., Ecuador and Chile - which both joined in 2016, but not China, Peru or Colombia), the constitutive treaties of relevant RFMOs often incorporate at least some of them. In the present context, Article 3 of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (SPRFMO Convention) ensures that China and Peru (but not Colombia) are legally bound by the key UNFSA conservation and management principles despite not being States Parties to the UNFSA (although limited to the scope of the SPRFMO Convention).

Under Article 8 UNFSA and the following provisions of the UNFSA, RFMOs and regional fisheries management arrangements (RFMAs) are the main instruments in the implementation of the relevant obligation(s) to cooperate. Notably, pursuant to Article 8(3) UNFSA, where an RFMO or RFMA “has the competence to establish [CMMs] for particular straddling fish stocks or highly migratory fish stocks, States fishing for the stocks on the high seas and relevant coastal States shall give effect to their duty to cooperate by becoming members of [the RFMO] or participants in [the RFMA], or by agreeing to apply the conservation and management measures established by [the RFMO or RFMA]”.

 From a practitioner and operational point of view, I’m quite fascinated by this type of analysis where reality and law collide, so I have a healthy level of “envy” for my academic colleagues who can make a living from researching and writing papers on these topics… I wish I could collaborate more often with them!

Observer coverage in the WCPO tuna fishing in “post-covid”

I’m kind of uncomfortable speaking of “post-covid” when worldwide people are dying of the disease. Thankfully not to the levels we had in the past, but it is not out there yet.

For the last 2.5 years the observer coverage in the regions was extremely low, with only 294 observed trips out of 2180 estimated fishing trips across the entire fleet. The lack of observer data significantly affects the precision of the purse seine skipjack but also bigeye tuna catch estimates in the aggregate data used for stock assessments.

SPC has previously advised that if the reduced observer coverage continues beyond 2021/22, there will be increased uncertainty in the estimation of management reference points for bigeye and yellowfin. 

Hence as covid stabilizes, we looking at ways to resume observer coverage. In  RMI we developed a new protocol for boarding observers, and while we maintained a pool of observers active with the domestic-based fleet, the reality is that in the region, we may have had a massive drop in the number of observers to service the estimated over 2000 placements a year we had prior covid.

Observers being self-employed, moved on into new jobs, started families, lost interest, etc… so even if their and the crew on board safety (in terms of covid) was guaranteed, it would take a while to get the core number needed back to the operational levels needed.

A lot of training and refresher training initiatives are taking place to help with this.

The transhipment at sea scenario was a mess before, and is bigger even now… we have seen a reduction in the number of observed transhipment events on the high seas, from 1472 in 2019, to 1172 in 2020, 1008 in 2021, and 348 to date in 2022. Few observers are being deployed on carrier or offloading fishing vessels, with 12% of transhipment observed in 2021 and 7% 2022.

Yet if we look at observer coverage in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), where the structure of the observer programme is quite different from that in the WCPFC. The IATTC observed 94% of transhipments in 2021 (including those in the overlap area) through a combination of national and IATTC Secretariat placements.

So this makes me question if we absolutely need to reform the way that the WCPFC HS observer programme works (or doesn't work)

 In fact we recognised in the last FFA “Quantification of IUU Fishing in the Pacific Islands Region” that at-sea transhipment as a key area of uncertainty in the longline supply chain, stating that “important areas of uncertainty remain in the at sea transhipment component of the longline supply chain and monitoring and control remain a work in progress. In particular, improvements are required to strengthen the implementation of the observer program such that information provided by vessels on the volume and species composition of fish transhipped can be validated against independent observer estimates”

At present, WCPFC has a requirement for a minimum of 100% ROP observer coverage rate to monitor at-sea transhipment (CMM 2009-06 paragraph 13), but lacks requirements for standardized transhipment observer forms and is the only tuna regional fishery management organization (tRFMO) that has not created a dedicated high seas transhipment observer program for receiving carriers.

So, while some WCPFC members do provide observer coverage on their flagged vessels under their national observer programs, this leaves the Commission to rely on a patchwork system where each member designs its own transhipment observer program without Commission-wide requirements for consistent observer training, data collection, or reporting. Overall, this current process does not provide consistent information conducive to the long-term conservation and sustainable use of tuna resources in the region – a stated aim of the Commission.

Other tRFMOs such as IOTC, ICCAT, IATTC, and - to a certain extent - the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) have comparable transhipment measures that apply to large-scale tuna longline fishing vessels and authorized carrier vessels. Each measure requires that:

• All at-sea transshipments are prohibited unless monitored under the transhipment regional observer program (ROP).

• Members ensure that all carrier vessels have a transhipment ROP observer onboard

• Members submit an annual comprehensive report assessing the content and conclusions of the reports of the observers assigned to their carrier vessels.

Across the RFMOs, these measures have led to very similar high seas transhipment ROPs, financed by the countries whose longline vessels engage in transhipment operations but managed and administered by independent organizations. These third-party organizations have provided training, coordinated placements, debriefed observers, and reported on transhipment data for over a decade.

Also, most of the countries doing transhipment at sea (China, Japan, Korea, Panama, Taiwan) do it across all tRFMOs. So one would think that it would be to their own benefit to have standardised HS transhipment observer schemes across all their fleets, doesnt matter under wich tRFMO their vessels are operating.

I reckon it would be the right time for the WCPFC to explore the option of a centralised WCPFC HS TS ROP that would be managed by a provider that coordinates with the WCPFC Secretariat to:

1. Identify available PIRFO-certified observers from national programs;

2. Facilitate observer contracts and coordinate placement of observers onboard vessels;

3. Coordinate logistics such as flight, visa, and accommodation arrangements for observers;

4. Administer financial arrangements (including allowances for observers in transit);

5. Develop and administer a Code of Conduct for observers;

6. Facilitate insurance for observers;

7. Manage the provision of technical and safety equipment; and,

8. Coordinate debriefing, data management and reporting.

While the Commission considers the advantages of HS TS ROP, it is also worth including the following improvements for the overall effectiveness of transhipment monitoring in the region:

• Adoption of reporting minimum transhipment observer data fields and submission of these reports to the WCPFC Secretariat within 24 hours of disembarkation.

• Enhanced transhipment data sharing agreements with IATTC; and,

• Requirements for countries to respond to transhipment observer reports.

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"