On World Fisheries Day, we sat with Dr Daniel Skerritt, Senior Analyst with the Transparent Oceans Initiative at Oceana and an Affiliated Researcher with the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, to untangle some complex concepts of fisheries transparency and hear his broad perspective on the subject.
We all agree that improving fisheries transparency is a crucial, yet daunting task for governments around the world. What is the practical value of open and accurate data about ‘who is fishing where, how, and how much’?
The value of enhancing transparency, particularly related to data disclosure, is incredibly high. When we talk about knowing ‘who is fishing, where, how, and how much,’ we’re addressing the core information that underpins sustainable fisheries management and regulatory compliance.
Knowing who is fishing and ensuring they are properly licensed and monitored is critical for accountability—if rules are broken, we can identify and take appropriate action against the offenders. It also means that we can understand the distribution of access, that is, if the opportunities to catch fish are shared fairly. This helps maintain a level playing field for all stakeholders.
Knowing where they are fishing helps protect sensitive habitats and control the spatial distribution of fishing effort. It is about making sure that fishing doesn’t occur in marine protected areas or in areas reserved for specific communities. It’s also about safety and minimizing conflicts in busy, shared marine spaces.
How fishing is done relates directly to the impact of fishing. Ensuring methods being used are selective, low-impact, and avoid by-catch of non-target species and juvenile fish, is important for the health of ecosystems. And ensuring vessels are properly equipped and maintained is important for crew safety.
Lastly, knowing how much is being caught is fundamental to fisheries management. Accurate catch data are indispensable for setting quotas and ensuring that exploitation stays within ecological limits to prevent overfishing.
Together, this information enables more informed decision-making, which is critical not only for sustainability but also for fostering trust and cooperation among stakeholders, regulators, and the public.
What are the main challenges or barriers to achieving greater transparency in global fisheries, and how can they be addressed?
Key hurdles include the lack of political will or appropriate political processes, particularly in wealthier nations, and technological and financial constraints in low-and middle-income regions.
Often, there’s resistance among actors, including some government bodies, who may benefit from less transparent practices or processes. To address this, building international coalitions that advocate for and support transparency can help align different nations towards common goals, and raise the standard for all fisheries. We need to ensure that our political and governance processes are up to the task of delivering transparency, this includes ensuring that resource users are held to account and that society can democratically hold decision-makers to account!
A significant hurdle may be a lack of financial, institutional, and technological capacity. It is not cheap, nor straightforward to collect and disclose information and therefore different forms of support, such as investment in technology and capacity building can empower governments to develop their own transparency efforts. This also means that we need to be clear about what or where transparency is most needed, who it will benefit, and to what end.
Another challenge is the balance between transparency and its potential unintended consequences, including when transparency clashes with confidentiality, privacy, and data protection rights. For example, a government is not expected to publish stakeholders’ personal information or the patrol patterns of their enforcement vessels.
So, clearly there are limits to transparency, but it is important that we agree where the limit between accountability and excessive privacy lies―the threshold of those limits may be different for different communities―and do not allow this challenge to prevent progress towards effective transparency.
What strategies can be implemented by governments to ensure that transparency of data and information in fisheries translates into transparency in policy-making processes, thus bridging the gap between data transparency and policy transparency?
I think that transparency of data and information in fisheries management is primarily a technical issue, while ensuring this transparency influences policy making is a broader social challenge.
Governments need to establish strong democratic processes that not only involve stakeholders in the policymaking process but enable the people affected by these policies to influence decisions and hold authorities accountable for outcomes. This includes creating legal frameworks that mandate public consultations and stakeholder engagements, ensuring that the voices of those affected by policies—particularly small-scale fishers and coastal communities—are heard and genuinely considered in decision-making.
Furthermore, policy transparency requires that the pathways from data collection to policy formulation are clear and open to scrutiny. This means implementing systems where policy decisions are publicly documented, their justifications linked directly to the data upon which they are based, and that their impact is regularly and transparently evaluated.
Finally, international cooperation plays a vital role. Sharing best practices and successes in integrating data transparency with policy transparency across borders can help raise standards globally.
How can transparency as a tool for ‘good governance’ help deliver measurable improvements in fisheries?
Transparency is the cornerstone of good governance, not just in fisheries! One of the key aspects, as highlighted in my recent paper (Seeking clarity on transparency in fisheries governance and management), is the role of transparency in ensuring that governance and management interventions are not only implemented effectively but also remain adaptable to changing conditions.
Firstly, transparency allows for the regular evaluation of policies. By making information about fisheries management publicly accessible, stakeholders, including the communities most affected by these policies, can see whether the objectives are being met. Openly assessing performance against stated goals enables monitoring and also facilitates informed discussions on the efficacy of different interventions. Moreover, transparency ensures accountability. When decision-makers know their actions and decisions are being observed and scrutinized (and that they will be democratically held to account), it naturally drives them to adhere more closely to the rules and to commit to achieving the best possible outcomes for society. This is particularly critical in fisheries, where biodiversity and the livelihoods of millions of people are at stake.
Additionally, if policies are found lacking, transparency mechanisms facilitate the necessary adjustments. This is not only about exposing failures but about creating a feedback loop where policies can be dynamically refined and improved based on real-world data and stakeholder input.
Ultimately, I think that the goal of transparency in fisheries governance goes beyond IUU fishing and is about creating systems where policies are not only designed well but are also continually optimized to ensure sustainable and equitable use of marine resources. When this does not happen we need to make sure that there are processes in place to hold decision-makers, or rule-breakers to account.
Cover image: © Maisie Pigeon
