Fishery observers play a central role in enforcing sustainable fishing practices. They collect the data that underpins catch quotas, monitor compliance, and document illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Yet paradoxically, the very work that brings transparency to hidden practices exposes them to significant risks. Observers frequently face undue influence from crew members, pressure to alter or withhold data, unwanted personal abuse and threats or intimidation. In the most severe cases, observers have disappeared or died under suspicious circumstances.
As independent consultants working under commercial contracts, observers sometimes lack the institutional protections afforded to other maritime professionals. The hazards they confront at sea are intensified by complex legal and governance gaps, leaving them uniquely vulnerable within at-sea operations.
Jurisdictional Challenges
A principal reason for the lack of observer protection is the complicated web of jurisdiction at sea. Unlike workers based within a single national territory, observers are often deployed on vessels flying foreign flags or operating in international waters governed by treaty law. Under international law, the “flag state”, the nation whose flag the vessel flies, holds primary responsibility for the safety and legal protection of everyone on board, including observers. However, enforcement by flag states varies dramatically, and many have weak regulatory frameworks or limited political incentive to comprehensively protect (non-citizen) observers.
When incidents such as assault or disappearance occur, multiple jurisdictions may claim relevance, including the country where the observer has citizenship, the flag state, the port state, and sometimes international authorities. While multiple claims of jurisdictions may sound positive at first, this isn’t a scenario where more is better. Rather, it results in unclear investigative authority, fragmented prosecution, and widespread impunity for perpetrators of violence or harassment against observers.
Domestic Legal Protections and Their Limits
Although several countries have enacted laws to protect fishery observers within their own waters or on vessels registered to their flags, these domestic legal safeguards have inherent limitations. National maritime laws generally apply fully to incidents occurring within a country’s territorial sea (up to 12 nautical miles from shore) or onboard vessels flying that nation’s flag. For example, countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia enforce regulations mandating observer access, prohibiting harassment, and prescribing penalties for violations.
However, the majority of risks arise beyond these jurisdictions, on the high seas or aboard foreign-flagged vessels, where domestic laws do not reach. Consequently, even the most comprehensive national legal protections become ineffective once observers operate outside their nation’s territorial waters or on vessels registered elsewhere. Furthermore, many countries lack specific legislation addressing observer safety altogether or struggle to enforce existing laws consistently, especially when observers are foreign nationals working far from their home states.
This reality makes it clear that generally, relying solely on national frameworks is not enough to ensure observers’ safety and rights. As a result, developing robust international or regional standards for observer protection is not just desirable, but essential to fill these gaps and provide uniform safeguards wherever observers may be deployed.
Lack of ILO and International Labor Protections
Fishery observers often lack the explicit protections afforded by key international labor conventions. The International Labour Organization’s Work in Fishing Convention (ILO C188) is intended to secure decent work conditions for fishers, acknowledging that fishers need special protection because their working conditions differ from other sectors. In this context ILO highlights that fishers may need to use dangerous equipment, their distance from professional medical centres in case of an accident or illness at sea, and the fact that fishing vessels can remain at sea for long periods. A Human Rights at Sea report mentions and estimated 24,000 people die on commercial fishing vessels each year, and Pew mentions more than 100,000 fishing-related deaths each year.
While many of these risks apply equally to fishery observers, the definition of “fisher”, the subject of ILO C-188, makes clear that “fisher means every person employed or engaged in any capacity or carrying out an occupation on board any fishing vessel, […] excluding [… ] fishery observers”. In other words, they do not benefit from the minimum standards on safety, health, and welfare as set by ILO. There is a growing movement advocating for an amendment to ILO C188 or the creation of a dedicated framework to specifically include and protect observers. Until this time however, there is no protection at this level.
The Role (and Limits) of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)
RFMOs, the international bodies that manage fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction (i.e. beyond the EEZs of States), play a role in observer deployment and oversight. Some have moved to require observer coverage on vessels under their remit and maintain certain reporting standards. However, most RFMOs fall short of establishing or enforcing concrete protections for observer safety, legal indemnity, and confidentiality. Few RFMOs have binding regulations or enforcement mechanisms to ensure observer protection. While many require observer coverage or data collection, actual protections for observer safety and rights are typically outlined in non-binding resolutions or guidelines, with patchy implementation and little recourse if a state violates these provisions. Reportedly, the consensus-based decision-making has weakened or delayed the adoption of robust safety measures in the past, and enforcement against offending member states is rare. As a result, even as RFMOs are central to high-seas fishery governance, their direct role in observer protection remains limited and often relies on voluntary compliance by member states and vessel operators.
There are exceptions. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has adopted mandatory, binding observer safety reforms through its Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs), applicable to observers in the WCPFC Regional Observer Programme only. Some other RFMOs have increasingly addressed observer programs and safety in their policies, these measures are generally non-binding or only partially binding and are less detailed than those of the WCPFC.
Don’t miss out. What you’ve read is only part of what we’ve put together at Natural Justice. Register to receive the full content on fishery observers directly via email: https://natural-justice.kit.com/fabd00da61
Sources
Legal Instruments
Fishery (General) Regulations (SOR/93-53) (Canada)
International Labour Organization, Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No 188)
The Fisheries Management Regulations 2019 (Australia)
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (USA)
Secondary Sources
Belja E, van Anrooy R and Kalikoski D, Regional fisheries bodies and their role in improving safety and decent work on fishing vessels (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No 1260, FAO 2022) https://doi.org/10.4060/cc1145en
Ewell C and others, ‘An evaluation of Regional Fisheries Management Organization at-sea compliance monitoring and observer programs’ (2020) Marine Policy 103842 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103842
Garcia EL, ‘Fisheries observers: An overlooked vulnerability for crime and corruption within the global fishing industry’ (2024) Marine Policy 106029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106029
Hammond DE, Mitchell-Rachin E and De Jesus P, The Necessity of Protecting Fisheries Observers at Sea (Human Rights at Sea 2023) https://www.humanrightsatsea.org/sites/default/files/media-files/2023-10/HRAS_The_Necessity_of%20Protecting_Fisheries_Observers_OCT%2023.pdf
Hidalgo M, Trott P and Haas B, ‘The vulnerability of observers – An evaluation of observer programs welfare and working conditions policies’ (2024) Marine Policy 106540 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106540
International Labour Organization, Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No 188): Marking the Roadmap for Decent Work in the Fishing Sector (2023) https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@americas/@ro-lima/documents/publication/wcms_914916.pdf accessed 5 August 2025.
McVeigh K, ‘Disappearances, danger and death: what is happening to fishery observers?’ The Guardian (22 May 2020) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/22/disappearances-danger-and-death-what-is-happening-to-fishery-observers
Planet Tracker, Observers Briefing Paper (July 2021) https://planet-tracker.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Observers-Briefing-Paper.pdf
Sosnowski M and others, ‘Crimes at sea: Exploring the nexus of maritime crimes across global EEZs’ (2024) 166 Marine Policy 106161 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106161
Leave a Reply