I’m a sucker for papers that blend tuna fishing and geopolitics… and it might be clear from my writings on tuna diplomacy and the alliances and misalliances that TW, CN, KR, JP, and the USA have within the WCPFC, especially regarding longline fishing (as I’ve discussed before, it’s a mess).
When I by chance came across a paper titled “Emergent geopolitical risks from fishing activities and past conflicts in the Pacific Ocean”, I definitely had to read it (even if it is from 2024, “emergent” is an elastic concept)
The study investigates the rising geopolitical risks caused by international fishing activities and historical disputes in the Pacific Ocean, with particular attention to drifting longline fisheries.
This spatial competition increases the risk of fisheries conflicts, which can occur as disputes over shared resources, gear interactions, and territorial claims. Such conflicts not only affect the livelihoods of fishers but also have broader implications for international relations and the sustainability of marine ecosystems. Using geospatial and network analyses, the researchers identified countries, country pairs, and regions in the Pacific Ocean at higher risk of fisheries conflicts due to overlapping fishing areas and historical rivalries.
Indeed, Taiwan and China emerged as dominant players, with the largest fishing areas and efforts, followed by Japan, South Korea, and the USA. The tropical Pacific was found to have the highest international fishing diversity and conflict risk, especially in areas outside national waters, such as the high seas adjacent to EEZs. These regions are hotspots for spatial competition, particularly in fisheries targeting tuna and tuna-like species, which are often the focus of disputes.
The study offers little new information for those familiar with and working in the region. Still, it provides a valuable academic reference for discussing these issues by emphasising the role of long-standing rivalries in influencing conflict risk. Countries with a history of recurring conflicts, such as Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea, are more likely to become involved in future disputes, especially in areas where their fishing activities overlap.
Higher-risk dyads, such as Japan-Taiwan and Japan-China, were identified based on shared fishing areas and the intensity of past conflicts. The research emphasises that these risks are not limited to geographically proximate countries, as distant-water fishing fleets from regions like Europe also contribute to spatial competition in the Pacific.
Governance mechanisms are essential in reducing conflict risks and encouraging cooperation. Regional organisations like the WCPFC and agreements such as the PNA oversee fishing activities and advocate for sustainable practices, even if the PNA's influence on LL remains relatively limited compared to PS.
These frameworks have helped reduce the intensity of conflicts, as seen in the historical Tuna Wars between Pacific Island nations and the USA, which led to the establishment of cooperative arrangements.
The study advocates for proactive measures to mitigate conflict risks, including science-based management of fishing efforts, catch limits, and incentives for sustainable practices. It also highlights the importance of considering broader social, political, and ecological factors, such as climate change, industry subsidies, and power imbalances, which can increase the likelihood of conflict.
The paper argues that understanding the complex dynamics of fisheries conflicts, including the role of private actors and global networks, is crucial for developing effective strategies to manage shared ocean spaces and promote the sustainability of marine resources. By integrating historical data, spatial analyses, and governance insights, the study offers a comprehensive framework for assessing and reducing fisheries conflict risks in the Pacific Ocean.