With the acceleration of digital and electronic technologies for ocean management, numerous companies and non-governmental organizations have championed and attempted to apply these tools across the world’s fisheries. In particular, forms of electronic monitoring have quickly proliferated. Electronic monitoring, or EM necessarily needs to be broadly defined as the use of various forms of surveillance to visibilize: catch, vessels, and in some recent trial projects and applications, laborers. While on the surface it may seem like an obvious technical fix to the widespread concern about human rights abuses, especially on the High Seas, our research has led us to take a step back, and consider this emerging topic and its related industries with caution if we are truly concerned about ocean equity. EM must be considered, not just as a technological question, but in its relation to several ongoing ocean issues: severe human and natural exploitation, how workers may or may not be able to bear their rights, and with regard to what the horizon of potential positive impacts for subordinated labor actually looks like in maritime spaces of society.
Interest in so-called “social dimensions” of ocean management is on the rise [1,2]. For instance, target 14.4 of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is to “end” illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing [3]. While this is a laudable aim, ocean-related production largely remains a “dark,” or in the words of American journalist Ian Urbina, an “outlaw” zone of activity [4]. Ecological economists have estimated as much as $83 billion dollars is lost annually due to IUU fishing [5]. Still, tremendous economic value continues to be captured by the sector ($1.5 trillion global gross value-added economic activity) [6]. Indeed, it is widely recognized that fisheries operate as a result of systemic maritime-environmental injustices [7-11]. The Global Slavery Index estimates 40 million people are enslaved across the textile, agriculture, construction, and fisheries sectors and numerous reports continue to reveal egregious human abuses at sea [12,13].
Clik here to view.
Electronic monitoring has quickly gained interest in “eliminating” this maritime “fishy business” [14,15]. EM can refer to various systems, from television to digital cameras, global positioning systems, data storage and transmission hardware, as well as analytical software installed on boats to surveil vessel activities. On the one hand, much focus of catch documentation in recent years has been on the development of cameras and associated electronic monitoring techniques. However, what is notable is how trials are now being launched to not only watch fish but watch people. Over the course of our research, we had the chance to speak with people involved in some of these efforts from the NGO and private sectors, and we found that proponents argue this turn towards use on labor may create greater transparency around human rights abuses at sea.
However, we also found that the social implications for such technologies often remain imprecise in concept and implementation. But, it is not good enough to hope technologies will somehow promote environmental justice and deliver equitable representation in maritime labor processes [16,17]. Currently, no frameworks for how electronic monitoring could be justly or equitably applied exist and the scientific evidence around the technology remains fragmented.
Several application possibilities continue to be discussed among specialists and scholars on this topic. Species verification and identification are the most common uses of electronic monitoring [18-24]. The ability to utilize digital means to monitor fishing activities, either in areas within national jurisdictions or areas beyond national jurisdictions (ABNJ), shows there is tremendous potential to “supply data required for fundamental scientific, compliance monitoring and ecological and social sustainability assessment applications” [25]. Simultaneously, these “systems are increasingly being used to complement conventional human onboard observer programs to initiate at-sea monitoring where none previously existed.” Indeed, reports continue to surface about the dangers of industrial fisheries, even for observers [26]. On board observers, effectively independent “watchdogs,” risk being at odds with the fishing captain and/or crew. This can result in harassment, crime, and physical violence. Some think that EM could increase observer safety at sea or eliminate this labor cost, as well as extend to monitoring crew activity [27].
However, when one looks at the track record of surveillance technology generally (which shows, at best, very mixed results of “success”) as well as with regard to fisheries in particular, we argue that caution should be taken in technological adoption processes. Importantly, fisheries scientists have shown that fishers and captains are already time and resource strapped. Fisheries policy scholar Nathalie Steins and colleagues concur, revealing in an interview study that “being able” cannot be understood as “willingness” when it comes to the introduction of monitoring technologies; fishers explained that they understood such implementations as “top down” reactionary policy to regulatory and market pressures towards an ill-defined notion of “transparency” [28]. Such findings cohere with attitudinal studies of EM, where the deployment issue has been revolving around mistrusting data use [29]. To deploy EM, there must be reassurance that the data collected will not be used against fishers, but rather to adapt reforms equitably, reflecting distributionally and procedurally just measures, with tangible benefits to the fishers (increased pay, access to justice), and we would add, with a prioritization of the concerns of the most poor, dispossessed, and marginalized among them.
And, there is a question of experience. Studies have found that using EM technologies, even in trial runs, can increase fisher acceptance, suggesting attitudes of suspicion and negativity can be overcome with time. Indeed, the need for trust across the social groups involved can be highlighted by any number of examples of the historical introductions of technologies [30]. Even if fisheries widely accept such surveillance methods, there still needs to be a management framework to ensure that they are not taken advantage of and that their integrity is still protected.
Moreover, a plethora of stakeholders must be considered, including private firms producing electronic monitoring technology, the captain, crew, and fisheries observers on-board vessels, civil society organizations that partner to trial EM, data reviewers, legal advocates and port-based remediation organizations that help fishers bear their rights (as this is in no way a passive process) research institutions, and governmental authorities or other fishery management organizations. Across this suite of actors, understanding how they relate to the procedural possibilities to address abuse in the workplace will be essential. Furthermore, self-advocacy of workers in addressing injustices needs to be supported as well through remediation services, which again take on a variety of forms, from connections to religious organizations, labor unions, or local community groups. Technological implementation needs to have clear guidelines that produce dialogic processes between, not just “all parties,” but prioritizing the interests of the subordinated to ensure that EM surveillance does not exacerbate existing inequities or have anti-democratic effects on the possibilities for civil discourse and societal participation [35].
References
[1] Lydia CL Teh, Richard Caddell, Edward H. Allison, Elena M. Finkbeiner, John N. Kittinger, Katrina Nakamura, and Yoshitaka Ota. “The role of human rights in implementing socially responsible seafood.” PloS one 14 (2019): e0210241, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210241
[2] Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor, Marcia Moreno-Báez, Gabriel Reygondeau, William WL Cheung, Katherine M. Crosman, Pedro C. Crosman Vicky WY González-Espinosa et al. “Enabling conditions for an equitable and sustainable blue economy.” Nature 591 (2021): 396-401, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03327-3.
[3]Tony Long, Sjarief Widjaja, Hassan Wirajuda, and Stephanie Juwana. “Approaches to combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.” Nature Food 1 (2020): 389-391, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0121-y.
[4]Jude Coleman. “Suspected illegal fishing revealed by ships’ tracking data.” Nature (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03658-9
[5] Tim Cashion, Santiago de la Puente, Dyhia Belhabib, Daniel Pauly, Dirk Zeller, and U. Rashid Sumaila. “Establishing company level fishing revenue and profit losses from fisheries: A bottom-up approach.” Plos one 13 (2018): e0207768, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207768.
[6] Ralph Rayer, Claire Jolly, and Carl Gouldman. “Ocean observing and the blue economy.” Frontiers in Marine Science 6 (2019): 330, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00330.
[7] Stefano B. Longo, Rebecca Clausen, and Brett Clark. The tragedy of the commodity: Oceans, fisheries, and aquaculture. (Rutgers University Press, 2015).
[8] David C. Bartholomew, Jeffrey C. Mangel, Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto, Sergio Pingo, Astrid Jimenez, and Brendan J. Godley. “Remote electronic monitoring as a potential alternative to on-board observers in small-scale fisheries.” Biological Conservation 219 (2018): 35-45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.003
[9] Marília Previero, Carolina V. Minte-Vera, and Rodrigo Leão de Moura. “Fisheries monitoring in Babel: fish ethnotaxonomy in a hotspot of common names.” Neotropical Ichthyology 11 (2013): 467-476, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-62252013000200016
[10] Edward F. Melivin, Anton Wolfaardt, Rory Crawford, Eric Gilman, and Cristián G. Suazo. “Bycatch reduction.” Conservation of Marine Birds (2023): 457-496, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-88539-3.00018-2
[11] Demian A. Willette, Lahsen Ababouch, Paul H. Barber, Paul ME Bunje, Jean-Pierre Cauzac, Anna Conchon, and Verena M. Trenkel. “Emerging monitoring technologies to reduce illegal fishing activities at sea and prevent entry of fraudulent fish into markets.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 7 (2023): 1166131, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1166131.
[12] David Tickler, Jessica J. Meeuwig, Katharine Bryant, Fiona David, John AH Forrest, Elise Gordon, Jacqueline Joudo Larsen et al. “Modern slavery and the race to fish.” Nature communications 9 (2018): 4643, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07118-9.
[13] Ian Urbina. The Outlaw Ocean: Journeys across the last untamed frontier. (Alfred A. Knopf, 2019).
[15] Andrea A. Stefanus and John A.E. Vervaele. “Fishy business: regulatory and enforcement challenges of transnational organized IUU fishing crimes.” Trends in Organized Crime 24 (2021): 581-604, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-021-09425-y
[16] Stephen C. Mangi, Sven Kupschus, Steven Mackinson, Dale Rodmell, Alexandra Lee, Elizabeth Bourke, Tom Rossiter et al. “Progress in designing and delivering effective fishing industry–science data collection in the UK.” Fish and Fisheries 19(2018): 622-642, https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12279
[17] Alejandro J. Lozano Garcia, Jessica L. Decker Sparks, Davina P. Durgana, Courtney M. Farthing, Juno Fitzpatrick, Birgitte Krough-Poulsen, Gavin McDonald et al. “Decent work in fisheries: Current trends and key considerations for future research and policy.” Marine Policy 136 (2022): 104922, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104922.
[23] David C. Bartholomew, Jeffrey C. Mangel, Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto, Sergio Pingo, Astrid Jimenez, and Brendan J. Godley. “Remote electronic monitoring as a potential alternative to on-board observers in small-scale fisheries.” Biological Conservation 219 (2018): 35-45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.003
[24] Marília Previero, Carolina V. Minte-Vera, and Rodrigo Leão de Moura. “Fisheries monitoring in Babel: fish ethnotaxonomy in a hotspot of common names.”
[25] Eric Gilman, Vicente De Ramón Castejón, Eparama Loganimoce, and Milani Chaloupka. “Capability of a pilot fisheries electronic monitoring system to meet scientific and compliance monitoring objectives.” Marine Policy 113 (2020): 103792, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103792.
[26] Christopher Ewell, John Hocevar, Elizabeth Mitchell, Samantha Snowden, and Jennifer Jacquet. “An evaluation of Regional Fisheries Management Organization at-sea compliance monitoring and observer programs.” Marine Policy 115 (2020): 103842, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103842.
[27] Jon Ruiz, Maite Louzao, Iñaki Oyarzabal, Luis Arregi, Estanis Mugerza, and Andres Uriarte. “The Spanish purse-seine fishery targeting small pelagic species in the Bay of Biscay: landings, discards and interactions with protected species.” Fisheries Research 239 (2021): 105951, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2021.105951.
[28] Nathalie A. Steins, Alessa L. Mattens, and Marloes Kraan. “Being able is not necessarily being willing: governance implications of social, policy, and science-related factors influencing uptake of selective gear.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 80 (2023): 469-482, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac016.
[29] Stephen C. Mangi, Paul J. Dolder, Thomas L. Catchpole, Dale Rodmell, and Nathan de Rozarieux. “Approaches to fully documented fisheries: practical issues and stakeholder perceptions.” Fish and Fisheries 16 (2015): 426-452, https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12065.
[30] Antonia Sohns, Gordon M. Hickey, and Owen Temby. “Exploring the potential impacts of machine learning on trust in fishery management.” Fish and Fisheries 23 (2022): 1016-1023, https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12658.
[32] Rhiannon Fisher. “‘A gentleman’s handshake’: The role of social capital and trust in transforming information into usable knowledge.” Journal of Rural studies 31 (2013): 13-22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.02.006; Eleanor Ford and Bryce D. Stewart. “Searching for a bridge over troubled waters: An exploratory analysis of trust in United Kingdom fisheries management.” Marine Policy 132 (2021): 104686, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104686.
[33]Jesse F. Senko, Hoyt S. Peckham, Daniel Aguilar-Ramirez, and John H. Wang. “Net illumination reduces fisheries bycatch, maintains catch value, and increases operational efficiency.” Current Biology 32 (2022): 911-918, https://doi.org10.1016/j.cub.2021.12.050.
[34] Peter Holland, Brian K. Cooper, and Rob Hecker. “Use of social media at work: a new form of employee voice?.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27 (2016): 2621-2634, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1227867.
[35] Couldry, Nick. “Surveillance-democracy.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 14, no. 2 (2017): 182-188.
Brian O’Neil is a Research Fellow at Ocean Nexus. More about Brian O’Neil
Nicole Kaiser is pursuing a career in academia and research as a STEM PhD student at Arizona State University with dreams to one day be a university professor. She is passionate about fostering community engagement, empathy, and just environmental policies towards wildlife conservation and ocean science. Her goal is to preserve and enhance marine biodiversity so that not only vital ecosystems are protected, but so communities can still retain their services from them. More about Nicole Kaiser