Is the global fish trade fair?

Is the global fish trade fair? | Photo: Jacek Dylag

The global trade in fish links coastal villages, factory decks and supermarket counters into a single marketplace. Yet the rules that govern how fish are caught, processed and sold vary sharply from one jurisdiction to another. In many cases, neighbouring fleets work the same body of water under different standards. Some nations enforce strict limits and labour safeguards; others apply light-touch controls, if any. At the same time, highly regulated markets routinely import seafood from places with weaker oversight. This article examines whether such a system can be called fair, ecologically, economically and socially, and what changes could rebalance it.

A patchwork of regulation on a shared resource

Fish stocks do not recognise borders. Migratory species cross exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and high-seas fisheries sit beyond national control. However, compliance frameworks, monitoring capacity and penalties differ widely by country. Well-resourced authorities can finance vessel monitoring systems, onboard observers and scientific stock assessments. Elsewhere, limited budgets, vast maritime areas and competing priorities weaken enforcement. The result is a patchwork of regimes applied to a shared ecological asset.

In regions with stringent quotas, seasonal closures and gear restrictions, fishermen often face higher operating costs and shorter seasons. Across an invisible line, competitors may exploit laxer rules, gaining lower costs per kilo landed. When both supply the same international buyers, the playing field tilts.

The import paradox

Several high-standard markets maintain tough domestic controls yet import large volumes from lower-regulation fisheries. Legally, import control schemes exist in a growing number of places, but their coverage is incomplete and their implementation uneven. Where documentation checks are paper-based or audit capacity is thin, the risk of products derived from overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) activity or abusive labour practices entering supply chains persists. For compliant fishers at home, this can feel like double jeopardy: strict rules locally while competing with imports that externalise ecological and social costs.

Price signals and hidden subsidies

Global prices rarely reflect the true cost of sustainable fishing. Direct and indirect subsidies, fuel support, tax breaks, preferential loan terms or infrastructure, lower costs for some fleets, sometimes encouraging overcapacity. In competitive export markets, underpriced fish can displace responsibly caught alternatives. Without strong, harmonised disciplines on harmful subsidies and transparent reporting, market dynamics will continue to reward volume over stewardship.

Certification and its limits

Voluntary eco-labels and buyer standards have driven improvements in some fisheries: better stock assessments, reduced bycatch and enhanced traceability. They have also opened premium niches that reward good practice. Yet certification favours operators able to bear audit costs and administrative burden. Many small-scale fishers in developing regions, though often low-impact, struggle to access these schemes. As a fairness tool, certification helps but cannot substitute for robust public governance that levels the baseline for all producers.

Labour rights at sea

The fairness debate is not only about fish. Conditions for crews vary from unionised, well-inspected fleets to vessels where wages are withheld, hours are excessive and safety is poor. Isolation at sea and complex ownership structures can enable exploitation. Strong labour inspection regimes, port state controls and worker access to remedy are unevenly applied. When seafood caught under abusive conditions competes head-to-head with responsibly caught fish, market incentives reward the wrong behaviours.

Who speaks for fishers?

A range of non-governmental organisations and worker bodies operate across this landscape.

·       Fisher and fishworker advocacy: International and regional collectives defend the rights of small-scale and artisanal fishers, promote decent work and press for inclusive policy-making. They support co-management, fair access to coastal resources and recognition of traditional knowledge.

·       Labour and human rights groups: Unions and specialist NGOs document abuses, provide legal support and push for adoption and enforcement of international labour instruments applicable to fishing. They campaign for transparent recruitment, written contracts, safe repatriation and access to grievance mechanisms.

·       Environmental and transparency NGOs: Conservation organisations, investigative groups and data platforms expose IUU fishing, promote vessel tracking and help authorities and buyers identify risk. Their work underpins import controls, due diligence laws and corporate commitments.

·       Fair-trade and community development initiatives: Programmes link better environmental practices to social premiums invested in coastal services, training and safety, aiming to ensure that value reaches fishing communities rather than stopping at the factory gate.

Together, these organisations help rebalance power asymmetries, but their reach depends on funding, political space and cooperation from states and industry.

Due diligence laws and port state controls

Importing markets are gradually adopting due diligence and traceability requirements that extend responsibility along supply chains. Port state control regimes have also strengthened, allowing authorities to deny port services or landings to vessels suspected of IUU fishing. Where these measures are well-resourced, transparent and enforced without discrimination, they can raise global standards. Where capacity is limited or loopholes remain, such as fragmented documentation, limited data sharing or minimal penalties, bad actors adapt and the deterrent weakens.

Small-scale fisheries and equity

Small-scale and indigenous fishers often operate with the lightest environmental footprint but face the steepest barriers: competition from industrial fleets, limited access to cold chains and finance, and volatility in fuel and bait costs. Fairness requires that trade rules and sustainability programmes are accessible and beneficial to these actors, not just to large exporters. Secure tenure, inclusive co-management, affordable compliance pathways and local value-addition can prevent coastal communities from bearing the costs of conservation without sharing in the benefits.

Measuring fairness: an integrated lens

Fairness in the fish trade spans three intertwined dimensions:

·       Ecological fairness: Are catch limits science-based and enforced so that stocks rebuild and ecosystems remain resilient?

·       Market fairness: Do prices and market access reflect compliance costs rather than reward corner-cutting?

·       Social fairness: Do crews and coastal communities enjoy safe work, fair pay and a voice in decisions?

A regime can score well on one dimension and poorly on another. A balanced system aligns all three.

What a fairer system would require

A more even playing field would not depend on any single lever. It would combine:

·       Harmonised baselines: Adoption and enforcement of minimum standards on monitoring, control and surveillance; crew welfare; and reporting, so that compliance costs are broadly comparable across fleets supplying the same markets.

·       Disciplines on harmful subsidies: Stronger multilateral rules and transparent reporting to curb support that drives overcapacity and overfishing, while protecting targeted, time-bound support for safety, science and transition.

·       Smart import controls: Risk-based, digital traceability with interoperable data, independent verification and meaningful penalties for non-compliance, applied consistently to domestic and imported product.

·       Support for small-scale sectors: Tailored finance, infrastructure and simplified compliance to ensure artisanal and community fisheries can meet standards and capture more value locally.

·       Labour enforcement at sea: Port state inspections aligned with labour conventions, due diligence on recruitment chains, and guaranteed access to remedy for crews regardless of nationality.

·       Transparency by default: Public vessel registries, ownership disclosure and accessible catch documentation so that buyers and regulators can verify claims efficiently.

On balance, the current architecture of the global fish trade cannot be described as fully fair. It allows seafood from under-regulated, sometimes exploitative contexts to compete directly with responsibly caught fish, while the ocean resource at the system’s core remains shared and vulnerable. Progress is visible, tighter port controls, emerging due diligence laws, broader use of electronic monitoring and the work of NGOs and unions, but gaps in enforcement, labour protection and subsidy discipline still distort competition and undermine conservation.

Fairness is achievable. It will depend on setting and enforcing common baselines, rewarding verifiable good practice, and ensuring that the communities and crews who steward the oceans share equitably in the value created. Until those conditions are met, the paradox of strict rules at home and permissive practices abroad will continue to erode trust, among fishers, consumers and the sea itself.