As part of my graduate research project, I had the opportunity to attend the 28th Session of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) in Bangkok, Thailand, from May 13th to 17th, 2024. As an official observer, I witnessed and learned about various aspects of international governance. I was privileged to see the meeting in person and gain a better understanding of the intricacies of tuna governance, as well as some of its faults and limitations.
Figure 1. Master of Marine Management Student, Scott Schrempf, on the first day of the 28th Session of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.
In May, I accompanied my project supervisors, Dr. Megan Bailey (Marine Affairs Program) and Dr. Hussain Sinan (Maldives Head of Delegation), to IOTC28 in Bangkok. As a newcomer to the IOTC, I found this meeting to be a fantastic opportunity for experiential learning. These annual IOTC meetings allow member states to manage Commission business and propose, negotiate, and adopt new conservation and management measures (CMMs).
The 28th session saw 24 proposals from various member states (Appendix I) submitted before the Commission. The Commission discussed and negotiated these proposals over the allocated five days. To become a CMM, each of these proposals must undergo a complex process of negotiations and revisions such that all IOTC member states agree to the measure by consensus or, rarely, adopt it through a vote or the proposal is withdrawn. Throughout the week, I began mapping a proposal's process to becoming a CMM (Figure 2) and started thinking about how transparency throughout this process can influence how observers understand decisions. Additionally, I was interested in how observers participate in the Commission and their influence on decision-making.
The CMM Adoption Process
Most proposals went through a linear path of the proponent state presenting in the Commission, which opened up a debate in plenary and then a proponent State response. The proposal was then put to the side for negotiations outside of the plenary until the proponent State presented a revision. The cycle of negotiations and revisions occurred until the proposal was either adopted through consensus or withdrawn by the proponent.
Comparatively, the proposals surrounding drifting fish aggregating devices (dFADs) and fishery closures were presented on the first day of the Commission, as several proposals surrounded the same contentious issue. The Chair subsequently made a Special Working Group to promote negotiation progress, extended lunch breaks to make time for negotiations, and convened a Heads of Delegations meeting to find common ground. In the final hour, on the last day of the Commission, the final proposal revision was put to a vote, with it passing through a 2/3 majority.
This year's meeting saw several themes across the proposals (Appendix II) and the Chair introduced the proposals in themed groups, starting with the most contentious – dFADs (proposals A, E, K, and R) and a full fishery closure (Prop M). It was clear from day one that this year's focus would be negotiating a CMM for the management of dFADs and with limitations relating to delegation sizes and the short Commission timeline, important conservation proposals such as PropV (On the conservation of sharks) and PropU (On an interim yellowfin tuna rebuilding plan) did not get the focus they needed and as such, were withdrawn on the final day. Positively, upon Pakistan's withdrawal of PropU, they did get consensus across member states to have a special session of the Commission focussed on yellowfin tuna, should a CMM not pass at IOTC29 in 2025. As an observer, I found this process was, at times, difficult to track, with several of the decisions being made based on negotiations occurring out of the plenary. By the end of the week, the Commission adopted ten proposals as CMMs and one as a recommendation.
Figure 2. Outline of the proposal to CMM process during the 28th Session of the IOTC. This figure represents the process that I viewed as an observer during this specific meeting. Square/rectangular boxes represent steps observed in plenary discussions or on the ITOC website, where ovular shapes represent those occurring outside the view of observers.
Transparency and the Role of NGOs
In the IOTC CMM process, observers only have access to specific steps, making discussions challenging to track and decisions hard to comprehend (Figure 2). While there is an opportunity for States to discuss proposals in plenary, which all attendees can observe, I found that member states rarely used this time for constructive debate and more so used to reiterate State positions on more finalized proposals. Instead, States negotiated proposals between plenary, during break times, and into the evenings, which are all less accessible to observers. In these times, observer groups also utilize the opportunities to lobby their positions on proposals. Still, it is only possible to determine where proposals are in the adoption process once a proponent state presents an official revision in the plenary. I believe this does a disservice to transparency throughout the process, as observers cannot understand what lines are contentious, where states’ values lie, and how delegations arrived at the final revision. Throughout the week, the plenary saw updated revisions of proposals; however, it was not always clear why certain lines were changed or lost.
Without full transparency across the negotiation processes, it can become difficult for some NGOs to perform their roles as communicators between the international-level decision-making processes and small-scale fish harvesters, as they cannot always explain why states made certain decisions. Additionally, without access to all negotiation spaces, NGOs are limited in their ability to lobby their perspectives on specific proposals and help states move proposals forward. For example, the lack of transparency can hamper the objectives of NGOs such as SWIOTUNA which works toward “Empowering non-state actors and coastal communities by improving their access to credible information and knowledge… to promote transparency and accountability in the governance of fisheries and equitable benefit sharing of sustainable marine resources.” Additionally, some organizations, like SWIOTUNA and industry groups, bring fish harvesters to Commission meetings to improve their understanding of the governance process. As a first-time observer, I found it confusing and complicated to follow discussions based on a lack of context for several discussions, which I am sure is common among new attendees.
Figure 3. IOTC28 attendees participating in the NGO event “Turning the Tide for Sharks at IOTC.” NGOs such as hark Project, Oceana, PEW, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, The Ocean Foundation, and Gallifrey Foundation organized the evening which included a panel discussion and networking among participants.
NGOs also serve several roles at international governance meetings, such as planning workshops and side events, bringing in topic experts, and providing delegate continuity and experience in Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction negotiations (Blasiak et al., 2017). At IOTC28, there were two NGO side events: one addressing IUU fishing (SWIOTUNA) and one on shark conservation and management (Shark Project, Oceana, PEW, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, The Ocean Foundation, and Gallifrey Foundation). These events brought together various member state delegates and observers for expert presentations and discussions on relevant topics of this year’s Commission. Commission negotiations, however, were primarily focused on establishing management of dFADs, and despite how passionate NGOs were about lobbying their stances, the progress on CMM implementation is determined by the willingness of IOTC member states to negotiate and find consensus across all issues. With large-scale observer groups, there is continuity between IOTC meetings that can provide experience towards understanding the proposal adoption process and lends itself to capacity building. Large international groups like WWF, PEW, Blue Marine Foundation and ISSF often send similar delegates annually, but smaller, locally focused groups may not have the funds to do the same, which can influence how information gets to small-scale fishers.
Attending IOTC28 in person was an invaluable learning experience and has provided pivotal information on who is involved in international management and how these organizations make decisions. As I complete my graduate project this fall, I continue to reflect on the experience and develop my understanding of how different actors influence international decision-making. I look forward to future experiential learning opportunities and the invaluable information and context that they provide to my work.
Reference
Blasiak, R., Durussel, C., Pittman, J., Sénit, C.-A., Petersson, M., & Yagi, N. (2017). The role of NGOs in negotiating the use of biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. Marine Policy, 81, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.004
APPENDIX I
PropA: Proposal on management of DFADs (KOR)
PropB: Proposal to amend Res 22-01_climate change (KOR)
PropC: Proposal on the CMM on marine pollution (KOR)
PropD: Proposal to amend Res 23-05_transhipment (KOR)
PropE: Proposal on biodegradability of DFADs (EU-SEY)
PropF: IOTC Res 18-03 Amendment Proposal (China)
PropG: On a management procedure for swordfish (AUS)
PropH: Proposal on a MP for skipjack (EU, AUS, MDV, UK)
PropI: Proposal on observer coverage (EU)
PropJ: Proposal on fins naturally attached (EU)
PropK: Proposal on FAD management (EU)
PropL: Proposal on high seas boarding inspection (EU-IND-SEY)
PropM: Proposal on a fishery closure (EU)
PropN: Proposal to amend Res 23-05 on transhipment (JPN)
PropO: Mandatory statistical reporting requirements (SEY)
PropP: Recording and reporting catch and effort data (SEY)
PropQ: On a ban of discards (SEY)
PropR: On management of drifting fish aggregating devices (IDN, PAK, SOM, ZAF)
PropS: On establishing a programme for transhipment (IDN)
PropT: Promotion of CMM implementation (ZAF)
PropU: Interim yellowfin rebuilding plan (PAK, ZAF, IRN)
PropV: Conservation of sharks (MDV-PAK)
PropW: On measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing (SOM)
PropX: To promote compliance (UK)
APPENDIX II
Catch and Effort Reporting (Proposals O, P)
Current CMMs (Proposal T)
DFADs (Proposals A, E, K, R)
Ecosystem/Bycatch (Proposals B, C, Q)
High seas boarding and inspection (Proposal L)
IUU (Proposals F, W, X)
Observers (Proposal I)
Sharks (Proposals J, V)
Transshipment (Proposals D, N, S)
Tropical tuna (Proposals G, H, M, U)