Fisheries transparency is often cited as a key tool for improving fisheries management. Given the shared nature of ocean resources and the remote locations where fishing can occur, transparency is undeniably important for better management of fisheries. It fosters the effective cooperation between agencies and across borders essential for sustainable resource management. Moreover, initiatives aimed at promoting responsible fisheries, such as improving traceability along the supply chain, rely on a certain level of transparency to be effective. Without transparency at the fishery level, traceability of data may only facilitate the spreading of misinformation rather than promote informed decision-making.
There is considerable variation in what “transparency” means to different stakeholders. Some stakeholders are satisfied with transparency in decision-making processes prior to fishing activities, such as quota allocation, the granting of fishing licenses, and ownership information. Other stakeholders argue fisheries transparency should extend further, and include data on fishing activity by providing vessel tracking or catch data. Yet, in a large number of States, fisheries transparency is far more limited. Data related to fisheries is often only provided upon request, if at all. Leaving the question of the “right” scope for fisheries transparency in the middle for now, one thing is clear: regardless of the scope, we must navigate the legal protections surrounding fisheries data.
Legal Protections: A double-edged sword
Fisheries data, both the data related to the fishing licenses and ownership information, as well as the data related directly to the fishing activity, is likely subject to various legal protections. For example, personal data protection laws safeguard individuals from having their location or movement disclosed without explicit consent, which may extend to vessel tracking data. Those owning or financially benefiting from fishing activities may also seek to protect sensitive commercial information, such as fishing grounds. In principle, these protections are reasonable. My interest in personal privacy, for instance, does not end when I go to work, and I also believe business owners have the right to control who benefits from the information their company has invested in obtaining. The challenge arises when these protections not only safeguard individuals but also become a barrier to addressing insufficient protection of the marine environment. Since many of these legal protections were not initially designed for at-sea activities, it can be difficult to determine whether jurisdictions with lower levels of transparency are withholding information because they genuinely believe it strikes the right balance between privacy, commercial information, and fisheries management, or if they are simply using it as an excuse to avoid improving their efforts. I expect you may find jurisdictions fitting in either category. There may also be a third category: those that are unaware of the conflicts that arise when trying to implement all legal protections simultaneously.
This is not to say that fisheries transparency efforts have not made progress in recent years. They certainly have, with several initiatives successfully supporting States in their fisheries management efforts. This has been mostly in an ad hoc manner however, and at times it is still unclear whether the States involved successfully balanced the different laws, or if they simply decided to ignore a potential infringement on the data protection side. While this may result in a win for fisheries transparency, I would still not applaud any efforts without knowing that the legal protections of those involved with the fishing are guaranteed. Let’s not forget – the law applies equally to criminals and law-abiding citizens.
Let’s not forget – the law applies equally to criminals and law-abiding citizens.
The Research Questions: Balancing legal barriers and States’ responsibility to protect and preserve the marine environment.
Bringing more nuance to the discussion on the level of fisheries transparency provided within jurisdictions, as well as the impact this has, requires a deeper understanding of the legal protections and the broader legal landscape. From my past work with Natural Justice, as well as through conversations with government representatives, I’ve found that many of the concepts relevant to this issue are underdeveloped. Ensuring proper supervision on the development of legal concepts required to further develop this legal perspective on fisheries transparency, I initiated a PhD at the University of Hamburg, which specialises in Law of the Sea. Additionally, Germany appears to be the European jurisdiction that takes privacy, the other side of the equation, most seriously.
You might wonder why I choose to talk so much about an unfinished PhD. I believe it’s an important topic for both public institutions and its stakeholders, and we are a critical time for improved ocean governance. Understanding legal limitations supports informed policy decisions by those organisations pushing for fisheries transparency. The more fisheries stakeholders can incorporate a legal perspective into their decision-making, the closer we can get to making a meaningful impact. At the same time, the research relies on input from stakeholders to ensure that my research delivers real value. I’m not just deeply committed to fisheries sustainability – I also value my time too much to spend three years on something useless.
In case you think you can contribute to, or benefit from this research, there are several things you can do:
- Subscribe to the monthly newsletter, which always includes an update on my research.
- Send me an email at eva@naturaljustice.nl to indicate your interest in participating in an Expert Consultation, and I will let you know when the next round of consultations will take place.
- Interested in a presentation or other bespoke work on this topic? Schedule a call here or send me an email at eva@naturaljustice.nl to share your request.
Thanks for reading! Was this of interest? Then you are in luck: I will be providing monthly updates on my findings via this website!
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, the author has also drawn inspiration from the following sources:
FAO, ‘The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024’ (2024)
Florini A, ‘The End of Secrecy’ Summer 1998 50
Kuner C, ‘An International Legal Framework for Data Protection: Issues and Prospects’ (2009) 25 Computer Law & Security Review 307
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L119/1
Rhoen M, ‘Rear View Mirror, Crystal Ball: Predictions for the Future of Data Protection Law Based on the History of Environmental Protection Law’ (2017) 33 Computer Law & Security Review 603
Leave a Reply