International Fisheries Compliance – and Sustainability – Relies on Data Review and Transparency

This is the second of two articles about the four pillars of effective compliance mechanisms within regional fisheries management organizations.

Regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) govern many of the world’s shared commercial fish stocks. RFMO member countries work together to set catch limits, rules on fishing practices and other policies to help manage the fisheries in their waters. To ensure compliance, almost every RFMO monitors how its members enforce the rules within their fishing fleets and recommends corrective action when non-compliance is identified.

But not every RFMO compliance review process is currently as effective as it should be. A robust RFMO compliance process is built on four pillars: collection of compliance-related data, review and evaluation of that data, follow-up actions in cases of non-compliance, and appropriate levels of observer participation to ensure that the process is open and transparent. This article focuses on the last two pillars and includes best practices and recent progress by RFMOs in these areas.

Pillar 3: Follow-up actions and other responses to non-compliance

An RFMO’s primary responsibility is to set conservation and management measures that promote sustainable fisheries and, in some cases, protect ecosystems affected by fishing. Because management measures work only if they are followed, RFMOs should have a system in place to respond effectively to any non-compliance by their members or the vessels in their fleets. Non-compliance can vary widely, from illegal fishing and overfishing to a failure to submit required paperwork, so RFMOs should adopt appropriate and proportionate responses for different types of infractions.

In particular, a set of follow-up actions – pre-agreed responses to confirmed cases of non-compliance – can help simplify how RFMOs resolve these issues. Predetermined actions also promote fairness and ensure that each member is treated the same. Follow-up actions can include sanctions, such as reduced fishing quotas or days at sea for the worst violations, or capacity assistance, training, and support to help a member correct an issue and meet its obligations in the future.

RFMOs should also adopt transparent mechanisms to comprehensively monitor and report on steps taken by members to resolve compliance failures. RFMOs also need to increase capacity-building programs that work in conjunction with their members to identify needs and help channel funds and other resources to countries that most require assistance.

In one strong model for other RFMOs, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) has adopted a compliance workplan to enhance how it identifies and categorizes cases of non-compliance and assign follow-up actions, including mandatory written updates from members and automatic review of each case during the next compliance committee meeting. Many other RFMOs – including the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) – still lack agreement on a list of mandatory follow-up actions, but, by following IATTC’s lead, they could help reassure companies throughout the seafood supply chain that countries are complying with key conservation measures.

Pillar 4: Observer participation in compliance reviews

To promote more effective and transparent compliance reviews, RFMOs should also ensure that independent observers—such as non-governmental organizations and fishing industry groups—can participate in the process. These third parties can provide RFMOs and their members with additional expertise, independent verification, and tools and best practices that help level the compliance playing field. Observers can offer technical assistance during the evaluation of specific cases of non-compliance, provide capacity-building to help implement corrective measures, and help assure that follow-up actions are consistently applied. Keeping all RFMO business open to participation by accredited observers is also best practice for ensuring transparency in decision-making.

The majority of RMFOs permit observer attendance at compliance committee meetings, although some do so for only parts of those meetings. IOTC, IATTC and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas give observers access to annual reports and summarized compliance data and allow them to attend full compliance meetings. And the North Pacific Fisheries Commission recently established observer guidelines, including a transparency rule which allows accredited observers to fully engage in meetings.

In contrast, WCPFC has not adopted observer guidelines and continues to bar observers from attending meetings where members review draft compliance data. This unnecessary opacity represents a challenge for groups that could offer strong technical, and, in some cases, financial support to WCPFC and its members as they work to improve management and oversight of their fisheries. Observers could also educate WCPFC members on other RFMO compliance schemes, which can lead to finding commonalities across organizations and awareness of the best practices and tools in the field.

Fisheries managers must continue to improve the efficacy and transparency of their compliance review processes as they work towards stronger oversight across the ocean. Concrete follow-up actions and open observer participation can help accomplish that and – coupled with sound data collection and transparency of review processes – help ensure that member governments follow the rules that govern some of the world’s valuable fisheries. 

Read the first article in this series, which discusses the two other pillars of RFMO compliance: data collection and review and evaluation of data.

Laura Eeles works on The Pew Charitable Trusts’ international fisheries project.