See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356404509

A practical take on the duty to uphold human rights in seafood workplaces

Article in Marine Policy · January 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104844

CITATIONS READS

0 2

3 authors, including:

Francisco Blaha

16 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

FAO work View project

Brazilian Book View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francisco Blaha on 07 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Marine Policy 135 (2022) 104844

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

A practical take on the duty to uphold human rights in seafood workplaces

Katrina Nakamura *, Yoshitaka Ota , Francisco Blaha
Sustainability Incubator, Inc., 329 Awini Place, Honolulu, HI 96825, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Too many fishing crew have died aboard vessels known for fisheries crime. The purpose of this paper is to raise
Fundamental rights awareness of the ‘fundamental’ rights of all people working in the seafood sector and the business duty to prevent
Human rights due diligence rights violations, as it is organized as minimum workplace procedures that are legally-established in interna­
Corporate social responsibility
tional law, in customary use and effective. The authours searched for workplace guidance for respecting rights
and then conducted research to identify the legal minimums that states have signed and ratified as essential, and
are also in scope of the business duty that is set out in the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and
Human Rights, 2011. The result is a short list of workplace procedures which are: (1) intended to prevent rights
violations particularly forced labour, (2) suited to diverse types of operations in different languages, customs or
circumstances, (3) appropriate to all people in a seafood workplace whether they hold a contract or not, and that
allow for (4) tracking labour conditions in ways which could be verified by the people working therein or their
representatives. To uphold fundamental rights in seafood workplaces, employers are to provide rights training
for all new recruits in a language they understand, a safe, responsive channel for workplace grievances linking
into the line of command, provisions for safe work in hazardous conditions, and among others, safe passage for
individuals choosing to leave. At sea as on land, every individual has fundamental rights to legally-established
assurances in seafood workplaces.

1. Introduction specified further in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human

Rights [1], Second Pillar, and entered force by a consensus of the United
Saleh Anakota, aged 22, died on August 8, 2020 on the same boat, Nations Human Rights Council (Resolution 17.4, June 2011):
Long Xing 629, where four fellow crew members had died three months
“The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights
earlier and two days before Rudi Ardiento, aged 30, died in the same
refers to internationally recognized human rights – understood, at a
fleet–a level of carnage that triggered a U.S. trade ban of all fish from the
minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of Human
entire fleet [21]. Too many fishing crew have died aboard vessels known
Rights (1948) and the principles concerning fundamental rights set
for forced labour and illegal fishing despite that forced labour is a pre­
out in the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on
ventable crime. The reliably credible way to ensure that working con­
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998). The re­
ditions in a seafood workplace comply with minimum legal
sponsibility to respect human rights requires that business enter­
requirements is for the people working there to be verifying conditions
prises: (a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights
in a safeguarded way. For employers, it is a duty to provide an agree­
impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when
ment and safe, responsive channel for sharing feedback and concerns on
they occur; and (b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights
an ongoing basis and with someone on the receiving end taking re­
impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or ser­
sponsibility for responding in an effective and timely manner. This is key
vices by their business relationships, even if they have not contrib­
to understanding what is happening in the workplace and allowing for a
uted to those impacts.”
pathway to prevent abuses or breaking the law. This employer duty, and
others, have been in force universally since 1948 to uphold human rights The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness of the ‘fundamental’
and labour rights since 1998, with operational requirements and rights of all people working in the seafood sector and the business duty
boundaries specified in domestic law. In 2011, the business duty was to prevent rights violations, as it is organized as minimum workplace

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Katrina@Sustainability-Incubator.com (K. Nakamura), yoshitakaota@me.com (Y. Ota), franciscoblaha@mac.com (F. Blaha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104844
Received 31 March 2021; Received in revised form 28 September 2021; Accepted 25 October 2021
Available online 19 November 2021
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. Nakamura et al.
procedures that are legally-established in international law, in
customary use and effective. Businesses are duty-bearers in the inter­
national legal framework and are advised to perform mandatory human
rights due diligence (OHCHR 2021) [2] to prevent or mitigate rights
violations experienced by human beings on the job, such as debt
bondage or ten other ILO indicators of forced labour [55]. While
excellent policy-level guidance is available for multi-national firms (see
the OECD Due Diligence Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct,
2018) [3] and for key topics like child labour in fisheries and aquacul­
ture (ILO 2014) [4] and fair recruitment (ILO 2019) [5], in comparison,
the authours located very few materials aimed at frontline supervisors
and inspectors who oversee seafood workplaces that are remote and
where wages are paid by productivity, not by time and often through
brokers in the middle. Workplace laws address the requirement for ac­
tion, for instance, but often lack practical guidance for upholding rights
at sea equally as on land or where people are hired without written
contracts; despite that the right to work without the threat of forced
labour is held equally by all persons. People on the job can be exposed to
violations when they do not know their fundamental rights, for example
foreign workers can be exposed to disproportionate wage deductions
and wage withholding to hold them longer in the workplace (ILO 2021
[6]). Facility supervisors and owners can also receive mixed messages.
US fishing vessel owners must detain some foreign crew members on­
board and withhold their identification, for example, under an order to
prevent their departure from the workplace (and prevent illegal entry to
the USA) (US CBP 2012) [7]. This can put vessel owners and captains in
a risky position because US Code (Section 1581 of Title 18) prohibits the
withholding of identification, consistent with global anti-trafficking
legislation (the ‘Palermo Protocol’, UN General Assembly 2000) [8],
and makes it unlawful to hold a person in "debt servitude” with penalties
of a fine or imprisonment up to 20 years.
The authours searched for workplace guidance for respecting rights
and then conducted research to identify the legal minimums that states
have signed and ratified as being necessary to prevent forced labour in
seafood workplaces. Forced labour is defined in the ILO Forced Labour
Convention, 1930 (No. 29) as "all work or service which is exacted from
any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has
not offered himself or herself voluntarily." The research was followed by
an analysis to clarify minimum procedures for human rights due dili­
gence at the level of the workplace. The results are intended to address
the very basics of the job and the institutions supporting it. The intended
audience includes, but is not limited to, seafood workplace owners,
supervisors, human resources managers, maritime and state agency of­
ficials and marine sector organizations seeking to know the fundamental
rights of people on the job and what to look for in seafood workplaces
toward mitigating or remedying conditions that could violate their
legally-established rights.
Clarifying the business duty for seafood operations is important
because forced labour activities are significant in global seafood supply
chains (USDOL-ILAB 2020) [9]. Forced labour is occurring in seafood
workplaces today (Voice of Indonesia 2021) [10], (Destructive Fishing
Watch 2021) [11], (Arab News 2021) [12] despite It has been a decade
since authorities like Interpol and the International Labour Organization
declared it a pervasive criminal problem in seafood workplaces across
regions and seafood product categories (USDS 2013 [13], Interpol 2013
[14], ILO 2013 [15], ILO-ARCM 2013 [16], Human Rights Watch 2010
[17]). For instance, debt bondage and coercion are normal in the com­
mercial fish sector according to Indonesians and Filipinos surveyed by
their governments and working domestically and abroad (Plan Inter­
national, 2019 [18]). This includes activities in fishing at sea worldwide
(Interpol Purple Notice, 2019) [19], aquaculture (USDS 2020 [20]) and
2
Marine Policy 135 (2022) 104844
seafood processing (USDOL-ILAB 2020) [21]) to the point that the le­
gality of imports is becoming a significant concern (European Parlia­
ment 2021) [22], (USDHS-CBP 2021) [23].
Globally, it is noted that Seafood was seventh among imports in 2020
with the most forced labour and child labour listings by number of
countries (USDOL-ILAB 2020) [24], and pointing to the responsibility of
the industry as, “unlike a decade ago, it is not just fishing vessel captains
and owners who are responsible for present-day fisheries crime
[including labour exploitation]. It is largely down to business execu­
tives, public officials, lawyers, accountants and other white-collar pro­
fessionals” (Interpol 2020) [25]. Nationally, US customs has detained
and banned seafood imports six times for ties to forced labour including
to debt coercion (USDHS-CBP 2021) since 2019 [26]. Requiring people
to work unsafely in hazardous conditions is another tie to forced labour
established in the international legal framework, so for instance high
mortality rates for divers in Chilean salmon aquaculture (FAO 2014)
[27] could be considered rights violations because longstanding haz­
ardous conditions have not been mitigated despite that divers have
spoken up for over a decade (Fish Farming Expert 2020) [28].
‘Human rights’ and associated protections gained the modern-day
force of law after the Second World War in 1948 with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)—an international response to the
horrors of the Second World War and to the extremes, challenges and
scale of employer/employee abuses of the industrial revolution and the
enormous task of abolition (UDHR, Article 4). While countries have the
option to ratify, or not to ratify, some labour provisions through the
conventions process, none are exempt from the duty to protect necessary
labour rights which are universally in force as defined in 1998 ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (ILO 2021)
[29]. With very few exceptions, none are exempt from the eight ILO
fundamental Conventions that illegalize forced labour and place con­
ditions on child work worldwide [30] (in 2019 the ILO reported 92%
universality).
This research is intended to be a response to current changes and
challenges in the seafood sector as rights violations become a legal
boundary in international trade. It responds to a 2017 statement of de­
mand by member countries to the United Nations Committee on Fish­
eries, under the auspices of the ‘Vigo Dialogues’, for organizing a list of
minimum requirements for social responsibility to facilitate the
compliance of operations across the seafood value chain with what
countries have negotiated and agreed [31] and set in context of legally
established human and labour rights [32]. The authours further
restricted the research scope to minimum workplace procedures for
preventing forced labour and illegal forms of child labour, but due to fish
sector conflicts also included indigenous and artisanal rights. For over
20 years, each author has individually prepared, tested, and delivered
methodology and activities for upholding and improving the established
fundamental rights of people working in seafood production and related
supply chains. Team competence derives from, together, co-owing and
directly supervising labour in six seafood operations as well as tracking
workplace conditions in over 300 seafood supply chains worldwide [33]
(author 1), academic leadership to build an interdisciplinary network
advancing equity research [34] (author 2), and, 20 years each in com­
mercial fishing and fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance on the
high seas [35] (author 3). The authours combined their perspectives and
contributions to have enabled the consideration of what systems, pol­
icies, law and commercial processes are effective in terms of their
application and enforcement in diverse seafood workplaces.
A fundamental principle underpinning this paper is that the dignity
of seafood work is protected in the law universally at every level and
location of enterprise. The authors acknowledge the need for multiple
K. Nakamura et al.
forms of practice and practical applications to respect diverse physical
and cultural conditions and respecting the legal framework for pre­
venting rights violations that are indisputably illegal, worldwide.
Awareness of human and labour rights is central to this because they
apply at sea equally as on land and equally in temporary, remote, and
brokered work as in salaried positions. The authors have attempted to
avoid aspirational and discretionary advice in favour of acknowledging
the legitimacy of international instruments pertinent to seafood work­
places, stewarded chiefly by the ILO, and the foundational legal review
and scholarship1 in 14 publications by Rebecca Surtees of the Nexus
Institute (Nexus Institute 2021) [36], (Surtees 2013) [37] that together
made compiling lists possible in a verifiable manner. Criticism of the
limits of international instruments for governing labour in seafood
supply chains was considered (for example by Stringer et al., 2014) [38].
The paper’s goal is to support the institutions providing oversight, the
seafood companies providing work, and the people doing the work, with
a practical take on the duty to uphold rights in seafood workplaces.
2. Materials and methods
The first step was to identify the legally-established human and la­
bour rights which are in scope for human rights due diligence and uni­
versally in force backed by the chief instruments of the international
legal framework:
- International Bill of Human Rights (UDHR 1948)
- Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (ILO
1998)
- Eight Fundamental Labour Conventions (ILO No. 29-1930/2014, No.
87-1948, No. 98-1949, No. 100-1951, No. 105-1957, 1958, No. 138-
1973, No. 182-1999)
The second step was to compile minimum procedures for fish oper­
ations which were negotiated and agreed by states to protect rights. The
required workplace procedures exist piecemeal across a number of in­
struments. Fishing labour was excluded from the Maritime Labour
Convention (2006), for example, which entered force in 2013 and has
been ratified by 98 countries, but is addressed in the Work in Fishing
Convention c188 (2007), only entering force in 2017 with 18 ratifica­
tions to date but supplemented by other international instruments
pertinent to fishing. Required procedures were compiled from:
- Convention against Transnational Crime (UN)
- The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons
(UN)
- The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
- The Work in Fishing Convention 2007 (No. 188) (ILO)
- The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessels Personnel (STCW-F) by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
- The Cape Town Agreement on Fishing Vessel Safety by the Interna­
tional Maritime Organization (IMO)
- The Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing
Vessels by the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
- The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)
- The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries by the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
- The Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Small-Scale Fisheries in the
Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (FAO)
- Santiago de Compostela Declaration for Equal Opportunities in the
Fishing Sector and Aquaculture (FAO)
1
Pertinent publications on trafficking of men, trafficking of children, and
trafficking for fishing are available on the Nexus Institute website, for example
at https://nexusinstitute.net/publications/trafficking-for-fishing/
3
Marine Policy 135 (2022) 104844
The third step was to reference the required procedures against the
business protocol for human rights due diligence that is set out in the
United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, 2011
and in guidelines for businesses which countries have negotiated and
agreed, including:
- The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN)
- General Principles and Operational Guidelines for Fair Recruitment
(ILO)
- Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct (OECD)
- The Guidelines for Responsible Supply Chains (OECD/FAO)
- The Global Compact Guide to Corporate Sustainability (UN).
The fourth step was to identify a short list of minimum procedures
which are: (1) intended to prevent rights violations and particularly
forced labour, (2) suited to diverse types of operations in different lan­
guages, customs, culture or circumstances, (3) appropriate to all people
in a seafood workplace whether they hold a contract or not, and that
allow for (4) tracking labour conditions in ways which could be verified
by the people working therein or their representatives. Methods used in
the sector today to encourage and enforce compliance also served as
analytical filters, for example for inspecting safe work in hazardous
conditions, fair recruitment and other labour conditions onboard fishing
vessels (ILO 2020) [39] and in the supply chain for imports (US CBP
2021 [40], OHCHR 2021 [41]).
Based on the aforementioned instruments in scope and analytical
framework, workplace requirements were identified for upholding four
groupings of fundamental rights:
- Universal workplace rights;
- Fair recruitment;
- Safe work in hazardous conditions; and
- Rights of locally-based peoples impacted by the operation.
The resulting lists (Lists 1–5) present a practical take on the duty to
respect rights in seafood workplaces. The required procedures listed are
only those that are recognizable to authorities and practical to imple­
ment and to verify (and therefore not complete). What this paper cannot
accomplish is the very important on-the-ground step of looking at na­
tional laws, discerning their very specific requirements for fisheries and
aquaculture, and ensuring compliance with the abovementioned inter­
national laws and conventions. That work is for authorities working at
the national-level to lead through policy refinement, advocacy and ca­
pacity building.
3. Results
The results are a distilled set of legally-established rights (List 1) and
“duty actions” for employers to implement, state institutions to oversee,
and distribution and retail companies to track in their performance of
human rights due diligence (Lists 2 through 5). A point to highlight is
that, before anyone goes to work, applies to work, or is recruited to
work, their fundamental human rights under UDHR (1948) are pro­
tected universally. The details of protection may vary from country to
country but the universal workplace rights do not vary. List 1 presents
aspects of an absolutely minimum understanding of rights which must
be implemented by employers for all people they hire, communicated to
all people working in facility, reinforced by supervisors, and enforced by
inspectors and quality control managers in the seafood sector toward
preventing forced labour.
List 1. Distilled rights protections towards preventing forced labour
K. Nakamura et al.
in the seafood workplace.2
1. Every new recruit is entitled to reach an agreement on terms prior to
entering the work environment at the outset of the life-work cycle.
This may be a contract or other form of agreement but never left open
to discretion (by owners, supervisors or brokers). It must, at mini­
mum, be compliant with national law for labour and safety.
2. Upon arrival, rights training for all new recruits is mandatory in a
language they understand.
3. A safe, responsive channel for workplace grievances must be acces­
sible to everyone working at the facility that is linked into a credible
and timely response by management.
4. Clearly written terms for paying wages are to be explicit about de­
ductions and limited to what is legal in the country of operation, or
else prohibited (fees for equipment, ongoing service fees, and
excessive deductions as typically defined by national labour are
generally illegal).
5. All of the abovementioned points are to involve and be verified by
people working there themselves or their representatives in a safe
and voluntary manner.
Forty-four minimum procedures are presented in Lists 2–5 which
states have ratified as essential for upholding rights in seafood work­
places. Far from being comprehensive, each item presents a consider­
ation that a facility supervisor, inspector, or quality control manager can
make to better recognize rights and rights violations in their perfor­
mance of human rights due diligence for seafood workplaces. The lists
are intended as a practical guide for especially seafood suppliers who as
non-experts are seeking to avoid causing or contributing to rights vio­
lations and for preventing or mitigating adverse human rights impacts.
The lists are intended as a practical guide to the international legal
framework and are to be used together with the original instruments and
domestic law and not as a standalone or proxy instrument. Procedures
are grouped in consideration of different categories of rights and rights
violations pertinent to seafood workplaces. Instrument sources for each
item are provided in footnotes and supplementary materials. On that
basis, List 2 is a distilled set of operational requirements for upholding
individual rights in seafood workplaces in consideration of remote lo­
cations, productivity wages and temporary employment. List 3 is a
distilled set of operational requirements for fair recruitment. List 4 is a
distilled set of operational requirements for safety in hazardous condi­
tions. List 5 is a distilled set of operational requirements to uphold rights
of locally-based peoples impacted adversely by the operation.
The authours’ unique contribution was preparing lists with the real
world setting of work in the seafood sector in mind. Fish work is skilled
physical work that is performed by professionals often on wet surfaces
with sharp equipment in extreme temperatures where accidents occur.
Fish and shellfish production facilities often are located remotely and
operate with fluctuating labour demand that makes recruitment by la­
bour brokers an important part of some businesses and by artisanal
norms in others. These minimum procedures describe very basics of the
job and a minimum capacity to identify and mitigate violations of
legally-established rights in seafood workplaces. The results could be an
implementation resource or potentially a verification resource for
2 Instruments: International Bill of Human Rights, Declaration of Funda­
Instruments: Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Per­
sons, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Guidance:
Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the
Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (FAO), General Principles and
Operational Guidelines for Fair Recruitment (ILO), Guidance for Responsible
Business Conduct (OECD 2018).
4
Marine Policy 135 (2022) 104844
anyone concerned with tracking labour conditions and risks in seafood
supply chains and planning mitigation or remedies.
List 2: Operational requirements to uphold universal rights in fish
work3:
• Before the arrival of new recruits in the workplace, the operation
must have a system for managing human resources which delivers
mandatory rights protections per the coastal, port or flag state or, at
minimum, mandatory human rights due diligence (List 1) in juris­
dictions offering insufficient governance for protecting human rights
(like open registries / flags of convenience);
• All people working (including informally) are provided with access
to a grievance channel;
• Every person in fish work holds a written work agreement compliant
with ILO core standards, itemizing terms and pay in a language they
understand and signed by the facility owner.
• Working conditions comply with 15 as the minimum age to work
onshore and 164 on fishing vessels, where schooling is also facilitated
and hazardous work is limited;
• Workers cannot be required to work without pay;
• Earnings must meet or exceed minimum wage rates in the country of
operation and be consistent with decent work, including wages based
on productivity rather than time;
• Deductions from pay for costs of work or taken at the supervisor’s
discretion are prohibited per domestic regulations and tracked and
eliminated to reduce the exposure debt bondage, forced labour, and
human trafficking;
• People working in a confined workplace are provided access 24/7 to
their personal identification documents (passports, ID cards) and to
telecommunication or other ways to signal distress;
• Individual rights to associate and to bargain collectively are upheld
and provided for per the coastal, port or flag state or, at minimum,
mandatory human rights due diligence (List 1) in jurisdictions dis­
allowing it;
• People in fish work earn equal pay for equal work regardless of
gender identifications;
• Women in fish work have full and effective participation and equal
opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making across
the operations.
• Working conditions are protected from gender-based violence and
sex role stereotyping;
• Discrimination in hiring, work placement and advancement are
tracked and eliminated;
• Parental leave is provided or facilitated;
• Medical insurance or coverage is provided for workplace injuries and
incidents; and
• Migrant fish workers earn equal pay for equal work and are provided
with equal opportunities to decent work terms, benefits and to
advance as nationals.
Note, two additional rights are in customary use. They are the right
to access to shore services and the right to be repatriated at no cost to
themselves where the contract is completed, terminated by the
employer, or due to illness, injury, exhaustion and other circumstances.
3
mental Principles and Rights at Work, Eight ILO Core Labour Con­
ventionsGuidance: Sustainable Development Goals for 1 No Poverty, 5 Gender
Equality, and 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth
4
WIF c188 Article 9, unless the child is authorized by the competent national
authority to work at 15 and has completed compulsory schooling or is enroled
in vocational training.
K. Nakamura et al.
The rights are observed as universal despite that commercial fishers
were excluded from the Maritime Labour Convention (2006).
List 3: Operational requirements for fair recruitment5:
• Seafood operations hire directly or use a labour recruiter registered
with a competent authority;
• No people working in the seafood operation shall be charged directly
or indirectly, in whole or in part, any fees or related costs for their
recruitment, unless conforming to domestic law;
• A list of people working in the operation and copies of their signed
work agreements are maintained of every fish worker in the facility;
• Work agreement documents depict the actual terms and conditions
in the workplace, conform to domestic law, and for people travelling
for work are consistent with what was agreed before their departure;
and
• Work agreements do not specify any pay deductions for necessary
items to do the job like boots, protective clothing, or costs of transit
to and from the operation.
List 4: Operational requirements for safe work in hazardous
conditions6:
• Conditions in the workplace comply with international standards for
operational health and safety, including conditions and equipment
for worker safety7;
• Conditions in the workplace comply with domestic standards for
operational health and safety and with requirements by regulatory
inspectors and law enforcement;
• Minimum rest hours and working hour limits are observed in all
workplaces, including fishing vessels 8;
• All new recruits are provided with safety training and annual
upgrading to raise their professional qualifications;
• All new recruits are provided health coverage for workplace injuries
and illnesses;
• First aid is accessible to all people working at the facility at all times;
• People who are injured on the job are transported to clinics or hos­
pitals without delay and at the employer’s cost;
• All work safety resources and documentation are accessible in the
workplace, including safety manuals, crew handbook, medical cer­
tificates and insurance documents;
• In a confined workplace, access is provided to nutritious and suffi­
cient food and at all times to clean water;
5
Instrument: ILO General Principles and Operational Guidelines for Fair
Recruitment, Guidance: Interpol Public Notice on Human Trafficking and
Forced Labour: The deceptive and coercive practices undertaken within the
recruitment process to work in the fisheries sector, Employer Pays Principle,
Sustainable Development Goal 8 for Decent Work and Economic Growth
6 of this research can serve as an implementation resource or as a verifi­
Instruments: Work in Fishing Convention 188 (ILO), Cape Town-
Torremolinos Agreement, The International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel - STCW-
F, International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea - SOLAS,Guidance:
Guidance for addressing child labour in fisheries and aquaculture (FAO/ILO),
Code of Safety for Fishermen and Fishing (FAO/ILO/IMO), Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries (FAO), and Sustainable Development Goal 8 for Decent
Work and Economic Growth.
7
International Maritime Organization, Cape Town Agreement and Torre­
molinos International Convention, 2012, in force 2020 (accessed March 11,
2021)
8
Fishing vessel owners and captains are required to give crew members a
minimum of 10 h of rest in any 24-hour period and 77 h in any 7-day period
(SCTW-F, WIFc188).
5
Marine Policy 135 (2022) 104844
• On fishing vessels, safety risks for crew members on the vessel are
assessed annually and addressed; and
• On fishing vessels smaller than 24 m, appropriate training and per­
sonal equipment are provided.9
List 5: Operational requirements to uphold rights of locally-based
peoples impacted adversely by the operation.10
• Equal rights are recognized of local operators to resources (like fish,
water, ice) to make income;
• Access to public resources (like fish, water, ice, dock and loading
space) is facilitated equitably;
• Discriminatory practices to women in local seafood enterprises are
eliminated;
• Access to markets for local operators is facilitated by governments
and never blocked by larger or foreign companies;
• Customary rights are recognized to fish and to aquatic resources for
indigenous and local people and enterprises;
• Respect for rights is demonstrated to smaller-scale local operators
and to self-employed people and all who work informally, without
exclusion due to age, gender, disability, race or ethnicity;
• Food security is maintained by seafood operations that are removing
food resources from a local area for trade and food insecurity is
mitigated for local people by governments;
• Free, informed and prior consent is obtained and developments are
reported publicly in advance where they will cause actual and po­
tential adverse impacts to the rights of local people;
• Local area management or engagement are recommended among
rights holders of aquatic and fish resources to coordinate benefit
sharing and adaptation to climate change; and
• Respect is demonstrated and adjustments made for different cultural
contexts and approaches.
4. Discussion
Until forced labour is widely understood as a preventable crime by
supervisors, inspectors and prosecutors, it can be perilous for fishing
crew or aquaculture or processing workers to leave when experiencing
forced labour, especially from a remote workplace, when an encounter
with law enforcement may lead to being returned or penalized for
absconding instead of assisted with legal, medical or mediative services.
Human and labour rights’ protections must be upheld and enforced
continuously in the workplace to respect the domestic laws deriving
from international law standards which states have signed and ratified
as application instruments. This position should be non-negotiable. The
authours’ intention in publishing the results of this research is to pro­
voke an open dialogue and an evolution of norms in marine and seafood
sector policy towards upholding rights and preventing forced labour
(and not a selective application of international standards). The results
cation resource in multiple ways, for example for updating human
resource and quality control systems inside seafood companies to be
9
FAO/ILO/IMO Tripartite statement from the 4th FAO/ILO/IMO Joint
Working Group meeting on IUU Fishing and other related matters, 2018,
https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/Pages/IUU-JWG-
4.aspx (accessed March 11, 2021)
10
Instrument: International Bill of Human Rights, International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights, Guidance: Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-
Scale Fisheries: in the context of food security and poverty alleviation, Volun­
tary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries
and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, Commission on the Status
of Women (2018 conclusions), Sustainable Development Goals for 1 No
Poverty, 2 End Hunger, 5 Gender Equality, 8 Decent Work and Economic
Growth, 13 Climate Action, 14 Oceans, and 15 Life on Land
K. Nakamura et al.
more deliberate about forced labour prevention and for raising rights
awareness in public-private dialogue to better support regulators to
enforce rights protections in seafood workplaces more effectively. Most
of all, publishing the results is intended to raise rights awareness widely
towards better communications and coordination within seafood com­
panies and among government agencies, particularly Embassies given
the multinational character of some seafood operations and the higher
labour risks experienced by migrant workers.
Forced labour is a crime universally and preventative conduct is
mandatory in all workplaces and specifically human rights due dili­
gence. In practice it means that rights training for all new recruits is an
essential requirement in a language they understand. The results suggest
that this is a legally-established right universally. There are multiple
ways to accomplish this (many will recall seeing a labour rights poster)
but the point is that it is essential that new recruits and their supervisors
share the same understanding of legally-established rights at onboard­
ing. There are no exclusions and can be no derogation from the law in
workplaces situated on remotely operating fishing vessels or aquacul­
ture farms, and neither in processing plants staffed by people sub­
contracted to brokers, because every individual has the right to legally
established assurances at the outset of the life-work cycle.
A safe, responsive channel is essential for reporting workplace
grievances that is linked into the management chain and line of com­
mand at sea. This takes numerous forms like worker committees, but
direct representation by workers of their experiences, is the key to un­
derstanding what is happening in the workplace therby allowing for a
pathway to prevent abuses or breaking the law. Another essential
consideration is to avoid indebtedness to employers which can lead to
debt bondage and debt coercion. Given the legal risks associated with
labour recruitment, businesses are therefore encouraged to follow the
ILO guidance for fair recruitment and to contain recruitment costs for all
people they hire through labour agencies. That includes prohibiting
wage deductions for costs of work not expressly permitted in domestic
law.
Safety of the person operating in hazardous conditions is a core la­
bour right. Regulatory authorities are duty-bound to protect this right,
and facility owners are duty-bound to respect it by providing adequate
worker safety training, education, and equipment. Making people work
in unsafe conditions is a violation of their basic rights that could be
considered forced labour and if proven, prosecuted. Work in hazardous
conditions may often be prohibited for under 18-year-olds in some do­
mestic laws, but where it is allowed it must be bounded by mandatory
safety provisions and hourly limits in line with ILO recommended
standards. Making sure both workers and their supervisors understand
the rights, their legal liability for violations, and guidance available [42]
is both precautionary and necessary. It is essential that the same rights
are understood by labour inspectors, transport, maritime, or state
enforcement officials so they can spot violating conditions and respond
or refer cases to competent authorities. The ambiguous application of
jurisdiction also poses a fundamental challenge to labour safety and
security in seafood workplaces.
Businesses are expected to know the law and to update their systems
as regulations change, for example with recently adopted anti-
trafficking legislation in Indonesia, Viet Nam, Thailand and the
Philippines [43], to stay in good legal standing. The Viet Nam govern­
ment, for example, amended its Labour Code in 2021 to require em­
ployers to provide written contracts for all including temporary
employment and to allow workers to immediately terminate their con­
tract for mistreatment or delayed wages. This is a consideration for
companies that are procuring seafood from Viet Nam for resale in a
market country that bans imports made with forced or child labour, like
USA, and should be supported. Seafood goods from Taiwan, China, Peru,
Brazil and 21 other countries are also listed as being made with signif­
icant forced or child labour (ILAB 2020) [44]. Businesses are advised by
the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to look for and
to acknowledge rights violations and not to suppress them. This can be
6
Marine Policy 135 (2022) 104844
intended as a uncomfortable but tracking labour risks and educating
suppliers is a strategy for reducing risks to human beings and the
businsess at the same time. By contrast, claims of Slavery Free can be
difficult to maintain because labour abuse often is hidden and forced
labour cases can occur anywhere. For instance, despite that the Dutch
brand Tony’s Chocolonely printed a slave-free claim on every chocolate
bar it was removed from the Slave Free Chocolate List (Food Navigator
2016) [45]. Never to be forgotten are the 1134 people who died (and
thousands more were injured) when Rana Plaza collapsed on them soon
after the Benetton clothing supplier passed a social audit after ordering
garment workers back to work when they staged a walk-out to protest
hazardous conditions (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2013) [46].
One of the most fundamental challenges to the accurate identifica­
tion and resolution of human and labour rights violations in global
supply chains is the misuse of audits. Auditors are not worker repre­
sentatives. Experience shows that legal violations can be hidden from, or
unseeable to auditors in short site visits. Social certification programs do
not conventionally interview people working in informal conditions
(who may be the majority in a workplace like a shrimp or salmon farm)
about their exposure to debt or safety violations. Conditions for salaried
employees have been projected onto temporary labourers by social
certifications (MSI, 2020) [47], suppliers have been pitted against per­
sons raising a concern by asking them to refute the testimony in order to
keep a trading relationship [48], and people have died in negligent
conditions soon after a social auditing firm reported to buyers that
conditions for people working there were “good”. Social audits are
widely used to verify “good conditions" defined by private voluntary
programs and this is valuable to markets but different from coming to
grips with workplace fundamentals for preventing rights violations like
forced labour crime.
On the other hand, accurate identification of workplace conditions
may be possible where local and regional organizations are involved,
particularly those providing social welfare or medical services, media­
tion, and other forms of advocacy and support. Labour rights organi­
zations like Stella Maris are active in the seafood sector worldwide and
can be aware of local conditions where they maintain an office, for
example Stella Maris has an office in the Saragani/Gensan port in
General Santos City, the Philippines. Similarly, the Labour Rights Pro­
motion Network maintains a services centre for seafood workers in
Samut Sakhon, Thailand. Local services for legal aid, medical assistance,
fellowship, or a consulate can be well placed to help resolve disputes
close to source to avoid a escalation by providing health, technical and
financial capacity like arranging vaccinations, mediating late payments
with supervisors or brokers, filing visa paperwork or facilitating re­
mittances or repatriation home. Not only companies but regional rules-
setting organizations in the fish sector should take note of regional and
local services in their jurisdiction and support fishing crew members,
divers, farm and processing labourers with minimum rights protections
and services they can reach.
In December 2021, at its 18th Regular Session, the Western and
Central Pacific Fishery Commission (WCPFC) will consider a Conser­
vation and Management Measure proposal after year of negotiation by a
working group on a draft measure introduced by Indonesia and New
Zealand. Like the Commission has required its members to protect
sharks, turtles and sea birds while fishing, it should add binding rules for
the minimum protection of the very people that fishing pivots around.
The Commission is a duty-bearer in the international legal framework
and is obliged to support Pacific Island members to enforce already-
adopted minimum requirements for human rights protections onboard
fishing vessels in the world’s largest fishery, particularly on vessels
fishing in their waters that are owned and operated by other states who
are WCPFC members.
In May 2019, the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, as a group
of predominantly coastal states, added crewing employment conditions
to their regionally-harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions
(“MTCs”) [49] for licensing requirements for fishing vessels. This may be
K. Nakamura et al.
the first time a coalition of coastal states has integrated labour
accountability into their key tools to regulate their waters. The MTCs
apply in all FFA Members’ exclusive economic zones (EEZs) in support
of the effective management of their fisheries resources. From
1/1/2020, a vessel not upholding the conditions may have their right to
fish removed. Any foreign fishing vessel that does not meet the regis­
tration requirements cannot be in “good standing” on the FFA Vessel
Register and, as a result, cannot be licensed by FFA Members. The
expansion of the MTCs addresses growing concern by FFA Members over
poor conditions of employment on some foreign fishing vessels oper­
ating in the region. It reflects heightened international attention to
human trafficking and modern slavery in the seafood sector but is
unique for having been undertaken by Pacific Island Nations (not
wealthy flag states). It is yet to be determined how fishing crew members
will be involved in verifying conditions onboard. As a duty-bearer in the
international legal framework, the WCPFC could ensure that all fishing
crew members are safe, paid as agreed and can repatriate when needed
by adopting common rules for all fishing countries in the Convention
area.
Last, seafood industry associations could encourage their members to
raise rights awareness in their facilities because it can prevent or de-
escalate a labour controversy. Recent development in Hawaii shall be
noted as a practice that addresses this safeguard, for example since 2019
foreign crew members working in the Hawaii longline fleet are raising
concerns directly or through their representative to the Crew Matters
committee composed of volunteer representatives, legal, medical/
dental, and social service providers, vessel owners, the vessel association
and the Hawaii Seafood Council. The scope of grievances that fishing
crew members can table for the committee to hear is unlimited and each
is then discussed and addressed to vessel owner or enforcement
agencies. The committee formed in 2019 after developing a manage­
ment system for reinforcing crew rights [50] and interviewing crew
(conducted by experienced social impacts practitioner Amy Gough) over
18 months and representing every vessel [51] and to learn conditions
from crew directly. The system includes (1) a universal (fleetwide)
contract specifying duties, wages, fishing share, and other details of the
position in English, Tagalog, Bahasa and Kiribas languages, and signed
by vessel owners and crew members, (2) an onboard handbook for crew
accessible 24/7 in crew languages, and (3) a vessel owners’ code of
conduct with protocols for resolving different types of disputes. A
persistent challenge has been a federal requirement to pick up foreign
crew members at a foreign port and transport them by sea to Honolulu
(since flying in was prohibited in 2001) [52] then requiring vessel
owners to prevent their departure from the pier area; and a crew visa is
in development [53].
5. Conclusion
The main conclusion of this paper is that raising rights awareness
among regulators, the industry and all people on the job is key to up­
holding rights in seafood workplaces and preventing forced labour.
Pointedly, human rights due diligence is a preventative protocol for
businesses and governments to fulfil together. The exercise holds great
promise for tracking then preventing or mitigating risky conditions but
can fall short where one party fails to recognize fundamental rights. The
protocol may not encompass all the relevant basic human rights pro­
tections required in the workplace, for example to bargain collectively.
It can also fail if used to reduce business risks by identifying and then
suppressing rights violations faced by people in work. A claim of intol­
erance to forced labour means little without corresponding mechanisms
to hear labour disputes as they arise in seafood workplaces and to
respond before they escalate. Exercised with respect for these limita­
tions, human rights due diligence could become a powerful agent for
change. There is a learning curve to sensitize seafood operators, mari­
time officials, prosecutors and global grocery executives to labour risks
and conditions—as they are defined in law but also as they occur locally,
7
Marine Policy 135 (2022) 104844
especially debt bondage and debt coercion—but the timeline should be
short. Slavery has been illegal universally since 1926. A hundred years
on, enforcement agencies like Interpol and the Financial Action Task
Force (forced labour is a predicate crime to money laundering) are
cracking down on labour exploitation in industrial production once
again. Withholding wages, identification documents or even access to a
first aid kit persist in seafood workplaces today in spite of labour law and
occupational health and safety regulations (IOM, 2021) [54]. Re­
searchers also could serve the enormous and still unfinished task of
abolition by asking, what does a safe workplace look like from the
perspective of a fishing crew member, shrimp harvester or peeler?, then
build a conceptual framework around that centre.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Katrina Nakamura: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Data curation, Writing − original draft preparation, Resubmission
preparation. Yoshitaka Ota: Supervision, Visualization, Validation,
Writing − review & editing. Francisco Blaha: Conceptualization, Data
curation, Visualization.
Declarations of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
Sustainability Incubator acknowledges support from the Nippon
Foundation Ocean Nexus Center at the University of Washington Earth
Lab. Lisa Rende Taylor and David Hammond read drafts and provided
valuable corrections and suggestions.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104844.
References
[1] United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011. 〈https://www.ohchr.or
g/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf〉 (accessed 10
March 2021).
[2] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Corporate human rights due
diligence – identifying and leveraging emerging practice, 2021. 〈https://www.oh
chr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/CorporateHRDueDiligence.aspx〉 (accessed 14
June 2021).
[3] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Due Diligence
Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct, 2018. 〈http://mneguidelines.oecd.
org/OECD-Due-Diligence-Guidance-for-Responsible-Business-Conduct.pdf〉
(accessed 10 March 2021).
[4] FAO/ILO, Guidance for addressing child labour in fisheries and aquaculture, 2014.
〈http://www.fao.org/3/i3318e/i3318e.pdf〉 (accessed 13 January 2021).
[5] International Labour Organization, General principles and operational guidelines
for fair recruitment and definition of recruitment fees and related costs,
International Labour Office Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work Branch,
Labour Migration Branch, 2019. 〈https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/
—ed_protect/—protrav/—migrant/documents/publication/wcms_536755.pdf〉
(accessed 9 August 2021).
[6] International Labour Organization, Q&As on Business and Forced Labour, 2021.
〈https://www.ilo.org/empent/areas/business-helpdesk/faqs/WCMS_DOC_EN
T_HLP_FL_FAQ_EN/lang–en/index.htm〉 (accessed 26 September 2021).
[7] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Vessel
Inspection Guide: procedures, regulations and documentation for the processing of
crew and passengers arriving in the United States, 2012, 〈https://www.cbp.gov
/sites/default/files/documents/vessel_guide_4.pdf〉 (accessed 26 September 2021).
[8] United Nations General Assembly, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish
Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United
Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, 2000. 〈https://www.
ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/protocoltraffickinginpersons.aspx〉
(accessed 26 September 2021).
[9] US Department of Labor-International Bureau of Labor Affairs, List of Goods
Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, 2020. 〈https://www.dol.gov/agencies/
ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods〉 (accessed 10 March 2021).
K. Nakamura et al.
[10] Voice of Indonesia, Sad news from Indonesian waters: 83 fishermen missing in the
last 6 months, RRI World Service, 〈https://voi.id/en/economy/60586/sad-news-
from-indonesian-waters-83-fishermen-missing-in-the-last-6-months〉 (Accessed 21
June 2021).
[11] Destructive Fishing Watch, 35 Migrant fishing vessel crew die abroad, June 28,
2021. 〈https://dfw.or.id/35-indonesian-migrant/〉 (Accessed 28 June 2021).
[12] Arab News, New investigation finds sharp rise in Indonesian slavery at sea, June 8,
2021. 〈https://www.arabnews.com/node/1870806/world〉 (accessed 14 Jun
2021).
[13] US Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, 2020. 〈https://www.state.
gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020-TIP-Report-Complete-062420-FINAL.
pdf〉 (accessed 10 March 2021).
[14] Interpol, Interpol launches Project Scale to combat fisheries crime, 2013. 〈htt
ps://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2013/INTERPOL-launches-Pr
oject-Scale-to-combat-fisheries-crime〉 (accessed 10 March 2021).
[15] International Labour Organization, Forced labour and trafficking in fisheries, 2013.
〈https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_norm/—declaration/docume
nts/publication/wcms_214472.pdf〉 (accessed 14 June 2021).
[16] International Labour Organization and Asian Research Center for Migration,
Employment practices and working conditions in Thailand’s fishing sector, 2013.
〈https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—asia/—ro-bangkok/documents/
publication/wcms_220596.pdf〉 (accessed 10 March 2021).
[17] Human Rights Watch, From the Tiger to the Crocodile: Abuse of Migrant Workers
in Thailand, 2010. 〈https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand
0210webwcover_0.pdf〉 (accessed 14 June 2021).
[18] Plan International, The SAFE Seas Project, Forced Labor and Trafficking in Persons
among fish workers from Indonesia and the Philippines: Pre-situational analysis,
2019.
[19] Interpol, Purple Notice: Human trafficking and forced labour: the deceptive and
coercive practices undertaken within the recruitment process to work on fishing
vessels, 2019 〈https://www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Environmental-crime/Fisheri
es-crime〉 (accessed 19 March 2021).
[20] US Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, 2020 〈https://www.state.
gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020-TIP-Report-Complete-062420-FINAL.
pdf〉 (accessed 10 March 2021).
[21] US Department of Homeland Security-Customs and Border Protection, Withhold
Release Orders and Findings, 2021 〈https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-admin
istration/forced-labor/withhold-release-orders-and-findings〉 (accessed 10 March
2021).
[22] European Parliament, Resolution of 10 March 2021 with recommendations to the
Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability 〈https://
www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9–2021-0073_EN.html〉 (accessed
14 June 2021).
[23] US Department of Homeland Security, Strategy to Combat Human Trafficking in
the Importation of Goods Produced with Forced Labor, 2021 〈https://www.dhs.go
v/publication/strategy-combat-human-trafficking-importation-goods-produced-
forced-labor-and-child〉 (accessed 10 March 2021).
[24] US Department of Labor-International Bureau of Labor Affairs, List of Goods
Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, 2020 〈https://www.dol.gov/agencies/
ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods〉 (accessed 10 March 2021).
[25] Interpol, Fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, December 2020,
〈https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2020/Fighting-illegal-
unreported-and-unregulated-fishing〉 (accessed 14 June 2021).
[26] US Department of Labor-International Bureau of Labor Affairs, List of Goods
Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, 2020 〈https://www.dol.gov/agencies/
ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods〉 (accessed 10 March 2021).
[27] FAO, Improving governance of aquaculture employment: A global assessment, FAO
Technical Paper 575, 2014. 〈http://www.fao.org/3/i3128e/i3128e.pdf〉 (accessed
11 January 2021).
[28] Fish Farming Expert, Chilean divers bid to end salmon farm death toll, 2020. 〈https
://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/divers-demand-change-after-spate-of-sa
lmon-farm-deaths/〉 (accessed 14 March 2021).
[29] International Labour Organization, ILO Fundamental Declaration on Principles and
Rights and Work, 1998. 〈https://www.ilo.org/declaration/lang–en/index.htm〉,
1998 (accessed 10 March 2021).
[30] The eight ILO fundamental Conventions are: the Forced Labour Convention, 1930.
(No. 29), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the Freedom
of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87),
the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the
Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), the Discrimination (Employment
and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), the Minimum Age Convention, 1973
(No. 138), and the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182).
[31] Committee on Fisheries (COFI-FT), Social sustainability in fisheries value chains:
some trends and challenges. Committee on Fisheries, Sub-committee on Fish Trade,
Sixteenth regular session, Busan, Korea, 4–8 September, 2017.
[32] Committee on Fisheries (COFI-FT), Social responsibility in fish value chains,
Seventeenth regular session, Vigo, Spain, 25–29 November, 2021. 〈http://www.
fao.org/3/nb389en/nb389en.pdf〉 (accessed 14 June 2021).
View publication stats
Marine Policy 135 (2022) 104844
[33] Nakamura, K., Bishop, L., Ward, T., Ganapathiraju P., Chakra Thomson, D.,
Tungpuchayakul, P., and S. Srakaew, Seeing slavery in seafood supply chains,
2018, 〈https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/7/e1701833〉.
[34] Ota, Y., Ocean Voices: Advancing equity through the UN Ocean Decade, Ocean
Nexus, Earth Lab at the University of Washington, 2021. 〈https://oceannexus.uw.
edu/our-community/un-decade-of-ocean-science-for-sustainable-development/〉
(accessed 9 August 2021).
[35] Blaha F. and K. Katafono, Blockchain application in Seafood Value Chains, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FIAM/C1207, 2020. 〈https
://www.proquest.com/openview/b7350f2892ef10d37a0e25a3f3b2739a/1?
pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=237324〉 (accessed 9 August 2021).
[36] Nexus Institute, Trafficking for Fishing, 13 publications available at 〈https://nexus
institute.net/publications/trafficking-for-fishing/〉 (accessed 12 June 2021).
[37] R. Surtees, Trapped at sea: using the legal and regulatory framework to prevent and
combat the trafficking of seafarers and fishers, Gron. J. Int. Law, 1:2 Hum. Traffick.
1 (2013) 91–153, 96.
[38] C. Stringer, G. Simmons, D. Coulston, D.H. Whittaker, Not in New Zealand Waters,
surely? Linking Labour Issues to GPNs, J. Econ. Geogr. 14 (4) (2014) 739–758.
[39] International Labour Organization, ILO Training package for inspection of labour
conditions on board fishing vessels, 2020 〈https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/
groups/public/—ed_dialogue/—sector/documents/instructionalmaterial/wcms
_766744.pdf〉 (accessed 3 March 2021).
[40] U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Forced Labor, US Department of Homeland
Security, 2021. 〈https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/forced-la
bor〉 (accessed 9 August 2021).
[41] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, EU Mandatory Human Rights
Due Diligence Directive: Recommendations to the European Commission, OHCHR,
2021. 〈https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/ohchr-recommen
dations-to-ec-on-mhrdd.pdf〉 (accessed 9 August 2021).
[42] FAO/ILO, Guidance for addressing child labour in fisheries and aquaculture, 2013
〈http://www.fao.org/3/i3318e/i3318e.pdf〉 (accessed 6 March 2021).
[43] (a) Indonesia prepared a National Action Plan for Protection of Seafarers and
Fishery Vessel Personnel of 2021–2024, (b) Viet Nam revised its Labour Code in
2019 to increase protections against illegal forms of child labour and forced labour
in food, fish and other labour intensive low wage sectors, (c) Thailand ratified the
Work in Fishing Convention, ILO c188, and (d) The Philippines enacted
Department of Labor Order 156–16, Rules and Regulations Governing the Rules
and Regulations of Fishers Onboard Fishing Vessels Engaged in Commercial
Fishing Legislation.
[44] US Department of Labor, List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor,
International Bureau of Labor Affairs, 2020. 〈https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/
reports/child-labor/list-of-goods〉 (accessed 10 March 2021).
[45] Food Navigator, Tony’s Chocolonely axed from Slave Free Chocolate List, defends
ties with Barry Callebaut, 2016, 〈https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2021/
02/16/Tony-s-Chocolonely-axed-from-Slave-Free-Chocolate-list-defends-ties-with-
Barry-Callebaut〉 (accessed 12 September 2021).
[46] Clean Clothes Campaign, Rana Plaza: Still Waiting, 2013. 〈https://cleanclothes.or
g/campaigns/past/rana-plaza〉 (accessed 14 June 2021).
[47] MSI Integrity, Not Fit for Purpose: the grand experiment of multi-stakeholder
initiatives in corporate accountability, human rights, and global governance, 2020.
〈https://www.msi-integrity.org/not-fit-for-purpose/〉 (accessed 18 March 2021).
[48] Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Who Audits the Auditor?: Shaping
Legal Accountability Strategies to Redress Social Audit Failings, March 2021. 〈htt
ps://mailchi.mp/business-humanrights.org/corporate-legal-accountability-quart
erly-update-issue-38-march-2021?e=b3b194ca75〉 (accessed 14 June 2021).
[49] Pacific Islands Forum Fishery Agency, Minimum terms and conditions. 〈https
://www.ffa.int/mtcs〉 (accessed 14 June 2021).
[50] Hawaii Longline Association, A review of efforts to uphold crew member rights in
the Hawaii-based Longline Fleet, 2020. 〈https://cde4384f-5ed1–4bf2-
b342–63982d693542.filesusr.com/ugd/fe9da7_
17507ec34a9142969a3443c63406a156.pdf?index=true〉 (accessed 14 June 2021).
[51] Gough, A., Info Sheet: Foreign labor in the Hawaii Longline Fishery, 2018.
〈https://cde4384f-5ed1–4bf2-b342–63982d693542.filesusr.com/ugd/fe9da7_
b70d6c33843b482fbd56bb1219d66d6a.pdf〉 (accessed 14 June 2021).
[52] Honolulu Civil Beat, How Foreign Crews Are Able to Work Abroad US Fishing
Boats, 2016. 〈https://www.civilbeat.org/2016/09/how-foreign-crews-are-able-to-
work-aboard-us-fishing-boats/〉 (accessed 20 September 2021).
[53] Hawaii Longline Association, Hawaii Longline Association Supports Federal
Agency Recommendations Regarding Human Trafficking in the Seafood Supply
Chain, 2021. 〈https://cde4384f-5ed1–4bf2-b342–63982d693542.filesusr.com/
ugd/fe9da7_c6405e4d0522431fabdab33675aa4c7c.pdf〉 (accessed 14 June 2021).
[54] International Office for Migration, Covid 19 Rapid Needs Assessment, Mahachai
Sub-district, Samut Sakhon Province (Round 3), 2021. 〈https://thailand.iom.int/sit
es/default/files/document/publications/COVID-19%20Rapid%20Needs%20Ass
essment%20Mahachai%20Sub-district%2C%20Samut%20Sakhon%20Province%
20%28Round%203%29.pdf〉 (accessed 14 June 2021).
[55] International Labour Office, ILO Indicators of Forced Labour, Special Action
Programme to Combat Forced Labour Series (2012). In press.