In June 2007, the International Labour Conference, the highest body of the International Labour Organization, adopted The Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188), and the accompanying Work in Fishing Recommendation, 2007 (No. 199).  These new international labour standards were adopted by an overwhelming number of positive votes.

What do these new standards mean for fishers in India?  How can the standards be used to launch a discussion on improved legal protection for India`s vast and diverse population of fishers?

Work in the fishing sector has many characteristics that set it apart from work in other sectors. 

The harvesting of fish, of marine resources, takes place in the often-challenging marine environment. When the weather conditions are harsh, as they often are, or when the catch itself presents a risk, the rate of accidents and event fatalities can be quite high. In fact, in many countries, fishing is the most hazardous occupation. In case of accident or illness, a fisher may be far from professional medical care, and must rely on others on board to take care of him, or her, until brought ashore.

Fishing is also an occupation with long traditions. One of these, found throughout the world, is that of not paying fishers a set wage but instead paying them on the basis of a share of the catch. While this has certain advantages, this system also tends to lead to very long working hours, a tendency to remain at sea even when bad weather might otherwise inspire fishers to return home, and therefore, again, greater risks and more numerous accidents than other sectors.  Many fishers are owner-operators. 

Fishers often live in remote communities that offer only limited alternatives for employment.

These and other factors call for special considerations for these workers. Yet, in many countries, fishers seem to fall, at least in part, through gaps in the system of laws, regulations and other measures that protect other workers. This may create a `decent work` deficit. In line with its object to provide decent work for all, the ILO is seeking to prevent this deficit.

Developing an international standard to address the specific conditions of all fishers has provided a considerable challenge. Since 1919, the ILO has sought to address this challenge in a number of ways. This has included adopting specific standards for fishers, or, when adopting certain standards for seafarers in general, including provisions in those standards that would allow them, after consultations with representatives of fishing vessel owners and fishers, to be applied to the fishing sector.

Altogether, the ILO has adopted five Conventions (binding on states that ratify them, once the Convention has entered into force) and two Recommendations (not ratified and not binding) for this sector. These have addressed the issues of hours of work, on board accommodation, minimum age for work on fishing vessels, medical examination/ certification, vocational training, competency certificates for skippers and officers, and articles of agreement. The first of these was adopted in 1920, and the most recent in 1966. As already noted, many of the over-60, other `maritime` standards could also be applied to fishers.

Unfortunately, the rate of ratification of its fishing standards by ILO member states has not been as high as could be desired. In some cases, only a handful of countries ratified these standards. Even worse, nearly all the ratifications were by European or other western countries whereas over 80 per cent of the world`s fishers come from the broadly defined Asian region, which includes important fishing countries such as China and India.

In 2002, the ILO`s Governing Body decided that the time had come to revise ILO`s existing standards for fishers. This decision was driven by several considerations. First, after consulting with representatives of fishing vessel owners and fishers from around the world, it was agreed that the existing standards needed to be updated to reflect changes in fisheries technology and operations. It was also agreed that a globalised world and globalised fishing sector required a truly new set of global standards - standards that would be truly universal in nature, applicable in all regions. Furthermore, the Governing Body had already agreed to the consolidation of nearly all ILO`s standards for seafarers into a single new Maritime Labour Convention (adopted in 2006). During the process of developing that instrument, it was agreed that the new Convention would not apply to the fishing sector, leaving a potential `gap` in the protection of seafarers. Finally, it was agreed that a new, comprehensive standard covering work on fishing vessels would be able to address certain issues not currently addressed in the existing ILO fishing instruments, for example, the issues of occupational health and safety, and social security.

The process of developing these new instruments was not easy due to the diversity in the fishing sector (not only diversity among countries but diversity of the sector within each country); the desire by employers and many governments for an instrument with general principles and not specific details; the desire by workers to retain, and perhaps improve upon, what they had gained in the ILO fishing standards; concern by governments, and others, of the possible costs of implementing the standards; and, as always, the pressure of time. 

Normally, an ILO standard is adopted after two conference-level discussions. These new fishing instruments required yet another Conference-level discussion and several expert meetings between sessions. India was an active participant. In the end, it was the strong commitment of the social partners, including much inter-session work of their own that allowed the successful adoption of The Work in Fishing Convention and Recommendation in June 2007. The positive side of this prolonged effort was that in the end, and still today, the ILO has the very strong support of not just governments and worker’s representative organisations but also employers` organisations in a wide and speedy ratification of the Convention.

Why is there such strong support for these new instruments?

First, the Convention and Recommendation address a wide range of issues that are essential to ensure decent work on fishing vessels. This includes updated provisions on minimum age, medical certification/examination, on board food and accommodation, fishers` work agreements and hours of rest. In addition, these instruments cover such issues as occupational safety and health, repatriation, recruitment and placement of fishers, fishing vessel owners` liability in case of sickness, injury or death, and social security. There are also specific provisions concerning the responsibilities of fishing vessel owners, skippers and fishers, which reflect the tendency, in many countries, for vessels to be skippered by persons other than the owner, a situation that, in many countries, has resulted from new approaches to fisheries management. Importantly, all these provisions have been developed with the very active participation of representatives of fishing vessel owners and fishers, and are, therefore, appropriate to the sector.

How will the provisions of the new Convention be enforced?

One of the features of the Convention is increased stress on enforcement and compliance. This includes provisions that require vessels of 24-m length or over, on extended fishing trips, to carry a document attesting to their having been inspected by the competent authority to ensure compliance with working and living conditions established under the Convention. Such inspections are to take place every five years. However, for smaller vessels and those on shorter voyages, there is more flexibility as to when and how such inspections should take place, and there is no specific requirement to carry such a document.

The Convention provides not only for control by flag states but also by port states. The non-mandatory port state control provisions encourage states to look into the conditions of foreign fishing vessels visiting their ports. If the conditions on board present a hazard to the safety and health of the crew, the vessel may be detained until these conditions have been corrected. Such a provision, which has been used for many years in the shipping sector, provides a powerful incentive for fishing vessel owners to provide fishers on such vessels with decent working conditions.

Is the Convention sufficiently flexible to be ratified worldwide?

The Convention does contain rather specific requirements on many of the issues noted above, but, at the same time, provides much flexibility, to take into account the special situation in the fishery or country concerned. 

First, it is possible for the competent authority of a ratifying state to exclude, from the requirements of the Convention or from certain of its provisions, vessels engaged in fishing operations in rivers, lakes or canals, and limited categories of fishers or fishing vessels. However, in such cases, it is to take appropriate measures to extend progressively the requirements under this Convention to the categories of fishers and fishing vessels concerned.

Second, where it is not immediately possible for the ratifying state to implement all the measures provided for in this Convention, owing to special problems of a substantial nature in the light of insufficiently developed infrastructure or institutions, the member may, in accordance with a plan drawn up in consultation, progressively implement all or some provisions of the Convention.  This `progressive implementation` approach should serve to encourage states to ratify.

Third, the Convention allows, for the very specific provisions concerning accommodation on fishing vessels, for the ratifying state to have laws, regulations or other measures `substantially equivalent` to the standards. Also, provisions concerning such issues as the size of the crew berths are applicable only to new, decked vessels.

Fourth, throughout the Convention, there are provisions for larger vessels on extended voyages and more flexible, less demanding provisions for small vessels or those on short voyages (fishing trips).  

Most of these flexibility provisions, however, also call for the competent authority of the ratifying state to first consult with representatives of fishing vessel owners and representative organisations of fishers. 

In many countries, the responsibilities concerning the conditions of fishers involve more than one competent authority, for example, the ministries or agencies concerned with fisheries, with maritime safety and with labour conditions. Does the Convention address this?

In fact, this was an important issue during the preparatory discussions. The result was the inclusion of a provision calling for a state to designate the competent authority or authorities and establish mechanisms for coordination among relevant authorities for the fishing sector at the national and local levels, as appropriate, and define their functions and responsibilities, taking into account their complementarities and national conditions and practice. The recognition of the importance of authorities at the local level reflects the reality of how such issues are addressed in many ILO member states.

If India chooses to ratify the Convention, must it adopt new laws and regulations covering all the provisions of the Convention?

Hopefully, an examination of India`s laws and regulations will reveal that many of these requirements already exist. However, should they not be fully covered, the Convention is to be implemented and enforced through laws, regulations or other measures. The term `other measures`, which includes, for example, collective agreements, provides even more flexibility as to how India could ensure compliance.

What could interested persons in India do now to achieve ratification of the Convention? 

Two important steps come to mind as possible immediate action that could be taken in India, regardless of whether or not she ultimately decides to ratify. 

First, it would be helpful to carry out a comparison between India`s national laws, regulations and other measures and those provided in the Convention. This would reveal where possible gaps might exist and help focus action.

Second, it would be very helpful to initiate consultations with employer and worker organisations, in particular representatives of fishing vessel owners and fishers about the Convention and the Recommendations, and how they might be applied. As noted above, the Convention provides a great deal of flexibility with regard to how it is implemented, and these consultations would bring in the knowledge, experience and creativity necessary to achieve implementation in a manner appropriate for India. Even if the Convention is not immediately ratified, such a national focus on the condition of fishers will undoubtedly lead to improvements in their lives and the lives of their families, ensuring that fishers, too, have decent work.

What is the ILO doing to assist states to implement these standards?

When the Convention and Recommendations were adopted, the International Labour Conference also adopted several resolutions calling for ILO work to assist implementation. The ILO  office is currently preparing promotional and training material on these standards. Furthermore, the ILO office in New Delhi and its headquarters in Geneva are ready to provide technical assistance on many issues covered by the Convention and Recommendations. This includes not only assistance to government officials but also to social partners in India.

Where can I obtain more information on The Work in Fishing Convention and Recommendations?

The ILO has established a website on the Convention:

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/sectors/mariti/fishing-iloact.htm

Further information can be obtained by the ILO Office in New Delhi. See:

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/newdelhi/