After the WTO Agreement on Fishery Subsidies and the BBNJ Agreement, another important international agreement for the fisheries sector is scheduled to enter into force. After Argentina’s accession earlier this week, the 2012 Cape Town Agreement met its threshold for entry into force, which is scheduled to take place in one year: February 2027. After the entry into force, there will be a phased implementation, as the Agreement applies to both new and existing vessels.
Fishing is one of the most dangerous professions, with thousands of fishers dying yearly; FAO estimates put fatalities at around 80 lives lost per 100,000 fishers annually -rates far exceeding other jobs. Safe and healthy crews are an essential part of responsible fisheries, but achieving this is not easy. Crews battle rough seas, icy decks, heavy gear, long working days, and at times subpar equipment like life rafts or radios. International Maritime Organisation (IMO), under whose auspices this Agreement was developed, works alongside the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), and others to enhance fishing vessel safety. This effort also helps combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, as rogue operators often skimp on safety gear, training, or weather avoidance to boost illicit profits, putting everyone on board at risk.
The Cape Town Agreement (CTA) will provide standards on the design, construction, and equipment of fishing vessels. Specifically, the Agreement delivers an internationally binding instrument (for Parties) with mandatory requirements for stability and seaworthiness, machinery and electrical installations, life-saving appliances, communications equipment, fire safety, and vessel construction. The strength of this Agreement lies in the fact that State Parties must embed these requirements into national laws. This means Flag States need to ensure that vessels under their registries, i.e. flying their flag, comply with the standards. But not just Flag States have responsibilities or powers; Port States inspect and detain non-compliant foreign ones.
Who will the Agreement apply to?
Only the 28 State Parties are bound; not all signatories or all 175+ IMO members. Signing an agreement signals intent, but only ratification or accession locks in legal duties. Therefore the obligations will start to apply only to the 3,754 vessels flying the flag of one of the State Parties (those that ratified or acceded to the Agreement). This only represents a small part of all fishing vessels that the Cape Town Agreement could apply to, an estimated 45,000 worldwide (out of an estimated 4.9 million fishing vessels in total, most small-scale, per FAO’s The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture).
These 3,754 vessels that the Agreement will apply to, are those flying the flag of:: Argentina, Belgium, Belize, Congo, Cook Islands, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Namibia, Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, and Vanuatu.
Existing Instruments
While the Cape Town Agreement is said to close a longstanding gap in global maritime safety, it is not the first or only agreement with this objective. According to IMO, it represents a fourth pillar in global fishing vessel safety, supporting these agreements that previously entered into force:
The IMO STCW-F Convention (1995) mandates training and certification for skippers, officers, engineers, and radio operators on vessels 24m+, alongside basic safety training for all personnel. Effective since 2012, it builds human competence but overlooks structural integrity.
The ILO Convention C188 (2007) establishes minimum work standards, covering rest hours, minimum age, repatriation, accommodations, nutrition, occupational safety and health, and medical care. In force for State Parties, but limited reference to vessel requirements.
The FAO Agreement on Port State Measures (PSMA, 2009) empowers ports to deny access to IUU vessels, proving highly effective since 2016 in deterring illegality through inspections and information-sharing.
Can We Expect the Agreement to Close All Safety Gaps for Fishing Vessels?
For this key question, I am not in a position to provide a complete answer. Having never worked on a large vessel myself, it is impossible for me to assess whether the standards provided on paper are likely to really provide the necessary protection for fishers’ safety. What I can speak to, is how this may close gaps in legal protections that currently exist. In this context, I would like to highlights three topics.
1. Existing protections safety on fishing vessels: this is not the first agreement of IMO that covers safety at sea. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) has been in force for decades, but it exempt fishing vessels from core chapters on construction, appliances, and fire protection – despite universal navigation rules in Chapter V. Fishing vessels generally operate different, which can make fishery-specific instruments more desirable. Without tailored standards, fishing fleets may face unchecked risks. This IMO instruments will implement provisions of the Torremolinos agreements (1977 Convention and 1993 Protocol) on the Safety of Fishing Vessels, that never entered into force due to insufficient ratifications. Making the Cape Town Agreement the first viable, binding global instrument to support large fishing vessel safety standards.
2.Protection for fishery observers: 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. While facing many of the same conditions at sea, were left out of the scope of ILO C-188, leaving them unprotected legally. The Cape Town Agreement does not exclude observers and establishes crew-wide rules on vessel design, gear, and inspections, vital for their high-risk monitoring trips. As stated in Regulation 2 on the definitions for the Cape Town Agreement: “Crew means the skipper and all persons employed or engaged in any capacity on board a vessel on the business of that vessel.” So while CTA does not explicitly mention observers, it uses a broad definition of crew, and this appears to be a clearly improvement from the ILO C-188 scope of protection: “fisher means every person employed or engaged in any capacity or carrying out an occupation on board any fishing vessel, […] excluding [… ] fishery observers”.
3. Standards for smaller vessels: the Cape Town Agreement only applies to vessels over 24 meter in length. For smaller vessels, voluntary IMO/FAO/ILO guides exist, such as the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Equipment of Small Fishing Vessels (2005) and Safety Recommendations for Decked Fishing Vessels <12m and Undecked Vessels. IMO frequently applies a 24-meter length overall (LOA) threshold, or equivalent gross tonnage. It targets larger, seagoing vessels that pose greater risks, and aims to balance feasibility with safety.
As the Cape Town Agreement moves toward entry into force next February, it promises a vital step toward safer seas, better protections for crews and observers, and stronger tools against IUU fishing – building on the fourth pillar of global fisheries safety.
Do you expect this Agreement will this truly transform fishing vessel safety standards?
Disclaimer: 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.
Leave a Reply