This a fair question that has been asked many times here in the region. Many groups and consultants have had a dig into this complex topic. A few days ago, I was asked my opinion on that topic.
It is a complex one to deal with; I’m not an employment expert, so, my opinions are influenced by my understanding of fishing, having lived and worked with locals for over 30 years and my understanding of labour rights… but critically of having being a migrant fisherman my self….
i took thios picture while being the only non pacific Islander on a fishing boat in the pacific… it should be the norm… not the exemption.
So below is what I wrote, for whatever is worth:
The expectations of PIC’s leadership to increase domestic crewing have remained aspirational, albeit there are different initiatives set up in different frameworks, which are not always consistent between them.
The jurisdictional complexities among the crew's responsibilities are a key factor that does not simplify the incorporation of more Pacific islanders into the fleet. There are still legal tensions under the UNCLOS in regard the scope for States other than the flag State to regulate fishing crew conditions. In considering these tensions, a distinction must be drawn between the right to prescribe rules (prescriptive jurisdiction) and the right to enforce such rules (enforcement jurisdiction), as it is possible to have jurisdiction to prescribe rules but lack the authority under international law to enforce them against foreign vessels. FFA members as coastal states have limited scope to apply their own civil or criminal laws simply by virtue of the presence of a fishing vessel in its waters.
There are some key international law agreements and statements of principle that the flag State ought reasonably to consider as part of its obligations under UNCLOS Article 94(3) and (5). Both ILO C188 and IMO’ Cape Town Agreement, and the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel (‘STCW-F’) are jointly responsible for ensuring the labour rights of the crew, their safety on fishing vessels and the minimal requirements in terms of safety training of crew on board. However, the majority of the DWFN and FFA Members are not party to these instruments.
While there has been a drive for “domestication of the fleet” by which the DWFN flag their vessels to FFA members, with a few exceptions, it seems so far an exercise of reflagging (mostly to 3rd party registries that are not based in the island countries) and as such may not have the interest of domestic crewing conditions at the forefront. While reflagging to FFA member states potentially brings some economic benefits as part of state-owned investments in the reflagged vessels in exchange for cheaper access fees, the presence of nationals of the flagging state on board remains from minimal to non-existent. Hence, conditions may need to be reviewed.
Skilled crewing capacity continues to be a challenge are remains a key cause of the reaching full realisation of domestication efforts. The lack of skilled crew to effectively operate fishing vessels is used as an excuse not to employ domestic crew. While creating capacity among Pacific Islanders has been a constant goal, and worthwhile national initiatives have been variously attempted, very few are maintained for lack of resources. One exception has been the PNG NFA Fisheries College in Kavieng, and its utilisation as a regional centre should be further explored[HHW1] [FB2] .
There is a level of Informalisation of crewing contracting in PICs, this needs to be further explored in detail.
a. Both domestic and regional actors need to undertake concerted action. At the domestic level, government departments should take greater responsibility for regulating recruitment to ensure robust recruitment practices and standards are in place. At the regional level, the FFA has identified the importance of introducing standardised recruitment and employment contracts for Pacific Island fishers recruited to work on vessels operating in the region. However, more needs to be done to establish and enforce regionally applied minimum standards that are consistent with international standards.
b. Government stakeholders (such as the Ministry of Employment, Productivity and Industrial Relations) should create a formal, legal mechanism to assess claims for unpaid salary as an avenue to seek redress. A robust compensation scheme for workplace injuries, long-term diminished health and wrongful deaths should be introduced and enforced. These mechanisms need to operate cross-jurisdictionally since fishers with claims might not be from the same jurisdiction as vessel owners or recruitment agencies. This is crucial because when petitioning for unpaid salaries, fishers are often told payment is the responsibility of a party in another jurisdiction.
Although there are ‘layers’ of labour and immigration requirements, including destination country agency and placement fees, work visas and high transportation costs, are not necessary for local citizen crew joining and disembarking vessels in their own territory or other islands, the competitive advantage offered by Pacific Island crew recruitment in terms of lower costs than for migrant workers does not seem to be enough to entice operators to recruit more pacific islanders. This reinforces FFA / ACIAR (2023) findings that working conditions and employment arrangements do not necessarily align with cultural values and ways of life for many Pacific Islanders.
Remuneration: none of the initiatives analysed for this report addresses the key issues why fishermen go to sea: good payment. Other than Tuvalu’s Fishing Crew Regulation, which dictates a minimum salary of US$ 500 per month for crews on Tuvalu-flagged vessels or Tuvalu nationals employed on foreign vessels, no other jurisdiction incorporated this critical factor. It is important to understand that for most fisheries around the world, and throughout history, remuneration has been made using some form of a crew-share payment, where the crew receives a share of the gross return as a “top-up” of a fixed minimum wage. While some DWFNs employing non-local labour conduct operations outside of national waters to avoid paying legislated minimum wages, this should not be the case in the FFA membership. Hence, it would be important not only to have a minimal remuneration that induces fishers to go at sea, but this also should extend to a fair catch shares structure in the contract process.
The chance to entice more Pacific Islanders to the harsh realities of fishing work will remain low while the issues of fair remuneration, legal protection and equal payment for equal work stay as they are now, in my opinion.
Yet, NFD in Noro in the Solomon Islands has proved this can be done. From the 1990s, NFD and Soltuna started supporting local crew with training at all fleet positions, and today NFD has a productive, profitable, predominantly localised fishing fleet of purse seiners and pole-and-line vessels.