Professor Chris Armstrong’s recent review of Charles Clover’s Rewilding the Sea paints a harrowing picture of industrial-scale ecological destruction on the High Seas; however, it needs to give a greater voice to fishing activities, welfare, safeguarding and all necessary protections for crew, observers and all persons working at sea.
Limitations of Voluntary Certifications
In his review, Armstrong highlights the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) concerning award of ‘sustainable’ certification to Atlantic bluefin tuna, which is struggling to recover from historic overfishing. But this is not the whole picture.
Human Rights at Sea shares concerns about voluntary fishery certification schemes, including the lack of comprehensive human rights due diligence by the schemes themselves and third-party audits.
In an open letter to the London Review of Books’ Editor, HRAS highlights key points of contention.
On the High Seas
Chris Armstrong discusses the immense power of industrial fishing interests and their state sponsors (LRB, 18 May). It should be pointed out that the legal framework under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 not only enables unsustainable fishing but also fails to protect workers at sea or their human rights. The industry is awash with voluntary certification schemes, of which the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), mentioned by Armstrong, is only one. A remarkably high proportion of senior figures from commercial fisheries sit on their boards. The MSC’s Audit and Risk Committee, for example, is overseen by the former managing director of a major Australian trawler business. Where standards do account for crew, their protections are often weaker than those directed by international conventions, foremost of which is the International Labour Organisation’s Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188). In part, this is because only twenty states have ratified ILO 188, and so its global authority and enforceability are weak. Those who have not ratified include China, the US and flag-of-convenience states such as Panama. However, supposedly independent certification schemes also make ‘edits’ to ILO 188. One US-based scheme, for example, does away with the ILO ban on sleeping quarters ‘forward of the collision bulkhead’.
Joseph Hearn, David Hammond
Human Rights at Sea, Havant, Hampshire
Certification, Standards and Ratings Challenges
In March 2023, HRAS published “Does it Do What it Says on the Tin? Seafood Fisheries Aquaculture Certifications Standards Ratings Review”, which seeks to catalyse public discussion around whether or not the identified schemes are fully integrating human and labour rights protections within their own certification schemes.
Our NGO is now directly engaging with multiple scheme owners in preparation for Version 2.0 of this iterative report, to be published at the end of July 2023.
Isolation and abuse
Fishing in international waters has long been a concern for experts, and HRAS echoes Armstrong’s concern about the lack of legal safeguards on the High Seas, which means ‘fishing in these areas is a free for all.’
However, the issue goes beyond just ecological impact, as many fisheries observers and crew members face isolation, abuse and, in the worst case, are murdered without legal recourse.
While certification schemes have traditionally focused on ecological sustainability, there is a growing desire, much of it driven by civil society, including Human Rights at Sea, for greater acknowledgement of the need for assured human sustainability. The two issues are inextricably linked but are often dealt with in isolation.
State-level policy development
Recently, HRAS visited the Falkland Islands to speak with the Falkland Islands Maritime Authority about their work improving working conditions for crew on foreign-flagged vessels. This was a positive state and commercial review across fishing stakeholders. It can be fairly used as an example of good practice in support of human sustainability and onboard welfare improvements through enforced licensing conditions.
Similarly, HRAS’s ongoing development of the Geneva Declaration on Human Rights at Sea establishes an international soft-law framework and narrative that aligns not just with Armstrong’s call for international cooperation and action in the maritime environment.
Driving forward
Transparency and open communication are central to HRAS’ mission.
Our NGO will continue to demand better protections for those living, working and moving across our seas and oceans, and will continue to engage in academic and policy debates to ensure that the voices of those working at sea are heard.
