After nearly eight years in the world of seafood, attending multiple events each year, it’s rare that I walk into a room where I don’t know or recognise anyone. But here I am, at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, in a room filled with people I don’t recognise at all. Interestingly, they seem to know each other, so it’s clear that I’m the odd one out. I’ve found myself at a two-day symposium on the ‘Constitution for the Oceans’, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 30 years after its entry into force (1994). It was fascinating to listen to scholars speak about Law of the Sea topics like the notion of a single continental shelf, etc., but as always: it was the topics strongly related to fisheries that really caught my attention.
It brought me to a stark realisation: the seafood sector, which dedicates an increasing amount of time to discussing fisheries sustainability, doesn’t talk about the role that governments and law must play in fisheries management often, if at all. Instead, a network of private mechanisms has emerged. And, by nature, private mechanisms cannot tackle the public root cause of the problem—inadequate fisheries management systems that allow for overfishing, illegal fishing, and opaque ownership structures. Sure, there are situations where corruption (oh sorry: “bad governance”) makes government action insufficient. In those cases, private mechanisms could attempt to (temporarily) fill the gaps. What worries me, is the fact that reliance on private mechanisms may come at the expense of holding governments accountable.
By nature, private mechanisms cannot tackle the public root cause of the problem—inadequate fisheries management systems that allow for overfishing, illegal fishing, and opaque ownership structures.
States’ Primary Responsibility for Fisheries Management
States have primary responsibility for managing marine natural resources. I don’t consider this a personal opinion (although I do agree with it), but a legal fact. Governments worldwide agreed on this principle when they signed UNCLOS. Two key articles, Article 192 and Article 193, emphasise this. Article 192 states that “States have an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.” Article 193 further reinforces this duty, acknowledging that States have the sovereign right to exploit their natural resources in accordance with their environmental policies, while still protecting the marine environment.
Then why do I feel like, in advocating for more focus on State responsibility, I’m making a statement? How I see it: I am a legal professional repeating the key elements of international Law of the Sea.
The Growing Role of International Collaboration
I am not bringing this up as a complaint. I am bringing this up, because if there was ever a time to feel optimistic about international collaboration moving the needle for sustainability in fisheries, it’s now. The WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies was adopted in 2022 and currently has 90 of the needed 109 members accepting the Agreement. This means ill-directed subsidies are not prohibited yet, but knowing this Agreement came after 20+ years of negotiation, we certainly seem closer to the finish line than the starting point. Additionally, there is sight on addressing the conservation and sustainable use of resources in the High Seas thanks to the High Seas Treaty (also known as the BBNJ). Adopted in 2023, more State ratifications seem to be coming in every month to approach the required 60 State ratifications [High Seas Alliance’s Ratification Tracker].
As the international framework around ocean governance and fisheries management continues to evolve, it’s key that Civil Society Organisations (CSO) save enough time and energy to push States for ratification of agreements or treaties and on holding States accountable for the health of our marine environment.
If there was ever a time to feel optimistic about international collaboration moving the needle for sustainability in fisheries – it’s now.
Why Holding States Accountable is the Only Sustainable Solution
Given these developments, I believe we must pay closer attention to the role that States, their laws, and their policies play in establishing a more responsible fisheries sector. We are all doing the best we can, but we must acknowledge private efforts for what they are: complementary or temporary band-aid solutions that will never replace the role of States in fisheries management.
I fully applaud companies that go above and beyond to ensure fair labour practices and worker grievance mechanisms. But that doesn’t absolve governments of their responsibility to enact proper labour laws and enforcement thereof. Similarly, private mechanisms may be necessary to address the immediate shortcomings of fisheries management, but should they be the default? Probably not. Where adequate fisheries management systems are already in place, private mechanisms could play a supplementary role, but they are likely most successful in doing so if they build on existing fisheries laws and policies. Luckily, there are a number of private mechanisms that do this well.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t blame private mechanisms for having shortcomings. States have unique tools at the fishery-level that the private sector cannot access, such as diplomacy and the authority to develop and ratify international agreements. Additionally, states hold formal membership in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and the FAO’s Committee on Fisheries (COFI). These resources are crucial for fostering the international collaboration necessary for effective and sustainable fisheries management. By holding States accountable, we can make meaningful, long-lasting improvements in the health of our oceans and the future of our fisheries. I believe there is a great role to play for the seafood sector and its Civil Society Organisations to push for systemic change through public actions. Or, at the very least, pause to wonder: are we too busy treating symptoms to hold States accountable?
Stay tuned to learn more about the different institutions and agreements mentioned in this article, for instance:
- The Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and its cases relevant for fisheries;
- The High Seas Treaty and CSOs supporting its implementation;
- Case studies on States’ Fisheries Management Systems.
Any requests? Send them to eva@naturaljustice.nl
Disclaimer & References
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Eva van Heukelom, and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated organisations, institutions, or entities. The analysis and conclusions presented are based on the author’s independent research and interpretation. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information provided, no guarantee is given regarding its completeness or applicability to any particular situation.
Beyond the sources explicitly cited in the footnotes, inspiration was drawn from the following materials, which are recommended for further consultation:
Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) (United Nations) <https://www.un.org/bbnjagreement/en/bbnj-agreement/text-bbnj-agreement> accessed 30 January 2025.
FAO, ‘The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024’ (2024) <http://www.fao.org/state-of-fisheries-aquaculture> accessed 10 January 2025.
High Seas Alliance, ‘Treaty Ratification Tracker’ <https://highseasalliance.org/treaty-ratification/> accessed 30 January 2025.
Pew Charitable Trust, ‘Fisheries Subsidies Agreement: What’s the Big Deal?’ (Pew Charitable Trust, May 2023) <https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2023/05/fisheries-subsidies-agreement-whats-the-big-deal?utm_source=chatgpt.com> accessed 30 January 2025.
WTO, ‘Chinese Taipei Formally Accepts Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, Bringing Tally to 90’ (18 February 2025) <https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news25_e/fish_18feb25_e.htm> accessed 19 February 2025.
WTO, ‘Members Submitting Acceptance of Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies’ (World Trade Organization) <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/rulesneg_e/fish_e/fish_acceptances_e.htm> accessed 30 January 2025.
Leave a Reply