- The connection between human welfare and ocean conservation is direct and unavoidable, a new op-ed argues, because lawlessness toward people often goes hand in hand with lawlessness toward the ocean.
- Although there is an international legal framework governing crew welfare on fishing vessels at sea, these protections remain uneven, weakly enforced, or entirely absent for too many fishing crews, particularly migrant workers deployed on distant-water fleets.
- “We cannot reasonably expect crews to comply with complex fisheries regulations including logbooks, bycatch mitigation, finning bans, spatial closures and other requirements when they are overworked, underpaid, isolated and afraid,” the author writes.
- This post is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily of Mongabay.
For decades, the global fisheries conservation community has rightly focused on the health of fish stocks, the integrity of management systems, and the long-term sustainability of ocean resources. But there is a fundamental truth we can no longer afford to sidestep: fisheries management that fails to protect the people working at sea is neither credible nor sustainable.
Crew welfare starts with international law. In theory, the framework already exists. International maritime law, anchored in instruments such as the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), establishes the responsibilities of states over vessels flying their flag. Complementing this are labor-specific agreements like the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Work in Fishing Convention (C188), the Maritime Labour Convention, and safety instruments such as the Cape Town Agreement on fishing vessel safety.
In practice, however, these protections remain uneven, weakly enforced, or entirely absent for too many fishing crews, particularly migrant workers deployed on distant-water fleets. Ratification gaps persist. Oversight mechanisms are diffuse and fragmented, and accountability too often disappears once a vessel leaves port.
Under international law, flag states, those countries where a ship is registered and to whose jurisdiction it is subject, remain the primary authority responsible for ensuring the safety, welfare and labor conditions of crews on their vessels. This is not optional. It is a legal obligation that is explicit under UNCLOS Article 94, on duties of the flag state. Yet many flag states lack either the capacity or the political will to exercise effective control over labor conditions at sea. Others outsource critical responsibilities to private actors, such as crewing agencies, without adequate safeguards. The result is a regulatory vacuum in which abuse can flourish, hidden by distance, isolation, and unverified or unvalidated compliance consequence reporting.
This governance failure is not hypothetical. Documented cases of forced labor, debt bondage, excessive working hours, withheld wages, and physical abuse continue to surface across global fisheries. These are not outliers; rather, they are symptoms of a system that has prioritized production over protection.
Encouragingly, change is beginning to emerge in fisheries governance spaces traditionally focused only on fish. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), one of the world’s most important Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), adopted a binding conservation and management measure specifically addressing crew labor standards in 2024, which contains specific provisions prohibiting forced labor and child labor, mandating decent living conditions, timely wage payments, medical care access, incident reporting for serious injuries and deaths, cooperation in search and rescue, and protection against retaliation for grievances. This is a meaningful step forward. It reflects growing recognition that human welfare is not separate from fisheries management, but integral to it.
Still, adoption alone is not enough. Implementation, compliance and enforcement will determine whether such measures improve conditions on deck or remain aspirational language on paper.
Additionally, there are operational aspects of the fishing industry that contribute to ongoing labor abuse. One of the most persistent and underaddressed challenges lies upstream of the vessel itself: the role of crewing agencies. In many fisheries, crew are recruited through third-party labor brokers operating across borders with limited oversight. Contracts are opaque, fees are charged to workers, and accountability is diffuse. When abuses occur, responsibility, and blame, is passed among vessel owners, recruiters and flag states, while crews are left without remedy.
If governments are serious about protecting workers, oversight of crewing agencies must become a core part of fisheries governance. That means licensing, transparency, joint liability, and enforceable standards, not voluntary codes and after-the-fact audits. Most importantly, flag states must acknowledge that “the buck stops with them” and that they are ultimately responsible for any human or labor rights violations that occur under their flags.
Furthermore, high seas transshipment enables fishing vessels to remain at sea for extended periods, sometimes longer than two years, without entering ports where crew may access authorities, disembark safely, or have their working conditions inspected. This prolonged isolation facilitates forced labor, human trafficking and other abuses by preventing crew from exercising their rights to leave, seek help or report violations.
See related: Worked to death: How a Chinese tuna juggernaut crushed its Indonesian workers
Current reporting requirements for at-sea transshipment make it impossible to verify the identity of anyone boarding or disembarking, as well as the time and location of such actions. Without the regulatory oversight and access to support services that port calls provide, crew aboard transshipment vessels operate in a virtually unmonitored environment where labor rights violations can occur with impunity. In fact, the ILO has identified poorly monitored at-sea transshipment as a key enabler of “forced labor and trafficking in fisheries,” as it allows vessels to function as closed systems beyond effective scrutiny.
Notably, while large seafood markets and NGOs have leveraged market pressure to address seafood sourced from illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and food safety, a similar mechanism does not exist with respect to labor abuses. Whether the carrot that is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) market eco-certification or the stick that is the European Union (EU) IUU regulation and the U.S. Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), there is no effective market barrier to seafood that is a product of human misery.
Despite its limitations, the EU IUU regulation did mobilize improvements. Similarly, the MSC recently integrated some labor-related checks (reporting, prohibitions on egregious abuses, audits/self-assessments) within its certification process, but the requirements are narrow and fall short of comprehensive human rights and labor standards. A similar market-based approach to flag states’ responsibility over crewing conditions consistent with ILO C188 could be easily implemented.
Technology can also play a role, if deployed thoughtfully and ethically. Advances in electronic monitoring, connectivity and digital identity systems offer new opportunities to reduce isolation, improve oversight and amplify worker voice. The recent expansion of satellite-based Wi-Fi, for example, is not a luxury, but rather a lifeline. Access to communication enables crew to contact family, report grievances, manage finances and seek help when something goes wrong.
Recent pilot projects combining electronic monitoring with onboard connectivity have demonstrated that these tools can also support social responsibility. Cameras can document working conditions, accidents, and compliance with rest and safety requirements. Monitoring footage, when governed by clear privacy protections, can serve as impartial evidence in dispute resolution. Importantly, crew often view such systems as protective rather than punitive, provided they are paired with trusted grievance mechanisms and safeguards against misuse.
Other emerging tools, such as self-sovereign digital identity, biometrics for identity verification, and secure worker-voice platforms, could help address long-standing problems like document confiscation, contract substitution and lack of access to remedies. These technologies are not silver bullets. They cannot substitute for inspections, enforcement or strong laws. But they can help close some of the accountability gaps that have long plagued distant-water fisheries.
It’s also worth noting that these technologies and processes are ubiquitous requirements for foreign labor serving on land. People entering a country to work as seasonal or permanent workers within the country all go through an immigration process and are subject to legal requirements such as contracts and occupational safety and health, so why wouldn’t we expect the same for a vessel that is explicitly territory under a flag state? If we can maintain a “mass balance” for immigrants entering and leaving a country, why wouldn’t we apply it to vessels, with an additional proviso that if it does not occur the products from that vessel are barred entry to markets or subject to sanctions the same way the products of IUU are by the U.S. SIMP and EU IUU framework?
None of this will matter, however, if the human dimension of fisheries remains siloed from conservation and management decisions. We cannot reasonably expect crews to comply with complex fisheries regulations including logbooks, bycatch mitigation, finning bans, spatial closures and other requirements when they are overworked, underpaid, isolated and afraid. A system that treats workers as disposable inputs should not be surprised when rules are ignored or evaded.
The connection between human welfare and ocean conservation is direct and unavoidable. Exploitation undermines compliance. Abuse erodes transparency. And lawlessness toward people often goes hand in hand with lawlessness toward the ocean and the resources we extract from it.
If we want fisheries that are legal, sustainable, accountable and resilient, we must build governance systems that value human dignity as much as biomass or economic targets. That means stronger flag state accountability, real oversight of labor recruiters, massive reform or prohibition of transshipment, meaningful RFMO action, and requirements for responsible use of technology to shine light where abuse has thrived in the dark.
Sustainable fisheries cannot be delivered on the backs of exploited workers. Until we fully accept that truth, and act on it, our claims of responsible ocean stewardship will remain fundamentally incomplete.
Alfred “Bubba” Cook is policy director for Sharks Pacific and has spent more than 22 years in fisheries conservation and management, supporting conservation at a national and regional level through policy improvements, market tools and technological innovation. He served a leading role in securing human rights at sea before the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) through championing and securing passage of a regulatory measure to ensure the safety and security of fisheries observers in 2016, which served as a catalyst for an additional regulatory measure addressing the welfare of fishing crew serving on fishing vessels in 2024.
Related audio from Mongabay’s podcast: Regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) regulate commercially valuable fish species like sharks, but their own activities often go unseen and unregulated, listen here:
See a related report which won an Excellence in Investigative Reporting award from the Society of Publishers in Asia (SOPA) in 2022:
Worked to death: How a Chinese tuna juggernaut crushed its Indonesian workers
See related coverage:
‘Substantial’ transshipment reforms adopted at North Pacific fisheries summit
First-of-its-kind crew welfare measure adopted at Pacific fisheries summit
Credits
This story first appeared on Mongabay
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.
