Conversations around fisheries transparency can imply that transparency equals public availability of any fisheries data. As discussed in our previous article on people’s right to know, there are different levels of data sharing, and public availability is just one of them. And beyond understanding what level of sharing we are talking about, we need to take a step back and ask: what makes fisheries data valuable in the first place? The value of fisheries transparency cannot be measured by the volume of data shared. For that, we need to look at the quality, relevance, and more. Only then, can we find the right balance between data sharing and data protection.
Prerequisites for valuable fisheries data
Before diving deep into who the data will be shared with and how, can already distinguish a few prerequisites that fisheries data must meet to be of value. Based on literature from key institutes, such as ICES, I found these conditions are frequently emphasised.
- Timeliness
Data must be available in a timely manner. The evaluation of this, depends on its intended use. For those aiming to inform real-time decisions or timely interventions, data needs to be as close to real time as possible. If used for statistical purposes or research into the impact of fisheries activity over time, then timeliness does not necessarily mean the data has to be “real-time” or even recent. - Truthfulness
If data is not truthful, then sharing it is simply spreading misinformation. It is therefore crucial that shared information is accurate and reliable. Only with high-quality data, can the potential of data sharing be achieved. - Representativeness
The data must accurately reflect the broader reality, not just isolated incidents or outliers. If it does represent outliers or specific incidents only, this should be clearly stated that the data cannot be interpreted as representative. - Understandability
Data should be presented in formats that are not only accessible but also meaningful to its intended users. This requires tailoring information to different audiences to ensure it can be understood and used effectively. - Relevance
Not all fisheries data are equal in terms of the value of the information it discloses. What makes data relevant depends on who is using it and what their objective is. The relevance of the data is therefore not fixed: it shifts depending on the questions being asked, the context in which it is used, and the decisions it is meant to inform. Relevance may also limit the quantity of data, as to not overwhelm stakeholders with an abundance of data that cannot support their objectives.
Not all Fisheries Data are created equal
Building on the concept of relevance, it’s important to recognise that different types of data elements serve different functions depending on the user’s needs. Their value comes from how well they align with a specific purpose. Be it scientific, regulatory, or commercial. To illustrate this, let’s consider two different scenarios.
Scenario 1: Estimated impacts of IUU fishing: Data on vessel location, fishing activity, vessel identification, and catch records are crucial in the context of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
Scenario 2: Emissions of fishing activity: Researchers focused on the carbon footprint of fisheries need data on fuel usage, vessel characteristics, and engine specifications.
Each audience, e.g. public institutes, researchers, NGOs, or industry, will judge the value of fisheries data elements differently in a specific context. Considering the scenarios, the emissions-related data elements of scenario 2 are likely irrelevant for the scenario on IUU fishing. Clarifying which data elements are relevant to a specific mission is an important and possibly never-ending step, as interest may shift with shifting priorities and technological advancements.
Zooming out from the specific scenarios for a minute. To structure conversations about what fisheries data elements are needed for fisheries transparency, I started by looking at the Key Data Elements (KDEs) defined in frameworks like the FiTI Standard and the GDST Standard. These lists of data elements provided a useful reference point for identifying which kinds of information are considered of value to fisheries transparency and supply chain traceability. From there, I expanded and restructured the list based on conversations with Civil Society Organisations that work on fisheries transparency.
As a result, I arrived at a set of eight categories of KDEs that collectively capture what is most often identified as essential for transparency in the fisheries context:
- Catch Data
- Crew Data
- Landing Data
- Licensing Data
- Subsidies & Foreign Assistance Data
- Trade Data
- Transhipment Data
- Vessel Data
The earlier scenarios included vessel location, fishing activity, and engine specifications, which can all be considered as”Vessel Data,” one of the eight KDE categories. Each category serves distinct purposes, depending on the specific objectives of stakeholders. For instance, “Transhipment Data” may be particularly relevant the scenario on detecting IUU fishing. Transhipment, the transfer of catch from one vessel to another, can be exploited to launder illegally caught fish, especially when conducted at sea without adequate oversight. This practice complicates traceability and can mask the true origin of the catch.
From a different perspective, “Subsidies & Foreign Assistance Data” can shed light on a coastal state’s capacity, but also willingness to enforce fisheries regulations. For example, if a coastal nation receives substantial development aid from the same country whose vessels are implicated in IUU fishing within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), this could hinder effective enforcement.
Conclusion
Valuable fisheries transparency is not about indiscriminate data dumping. It’s about ensuring the right data reaches the right people, in the right format, at the right time. By focusing on the conditions that make data valuable and recognizing the audience-specific nature of data needs, we can move toward a more effective, responsible, and meaningful transparency in fisheries management.
What do you think? Did we miss a category? Which KDEs are most relevant for your work?
Natural Justice can support your organisation in navigating the complexities of understanding valuable data sharing and challenges you may encounter in this context. We offer presentations and tailored training on fisheries transparency, clarifying which laws and public policies may support or hinder your mission, and helping you identify which data matters most for your objectives. If you’re looking to better understand the legal frameworks behind data collection, sharing, and use in fisheries, get in touch via 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, the author has also drawn inspiration from the following sources:
Fisheries Transparency Initiative, ‘The FiTI Standard’ (FiTI, 2025) https://fiti.global/fiti-standard Accessed 10 November 2024
Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability, ‘The Standard’ (The GDST, 2023) https://thegdst.org/resources/standard/ accessed 12 November 2024
Harrison J, ‘International Transparency Obligations in Fisheries Conservation and Management: Inter-state and Intra-state Dimensions’ (2022) Marine Policy 135.
Orofino S et al, ‘Opportunities and Challenges for Improving Fisheries Management through Greater Transparency in Vessel Tracking’ (2023) 80 ICES Journal of Marine Science 675.
Petersson M T, ‘Transparency in Global Fisheries Governance: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations’ (2022) Marine Policy 131.
Skerritt D, ‘Seeking Clarity on Transparency in Fisheries Governance and Management’ (2024) 155 Marine Policy 105701.
Leave a Reply