16. A conservation practitioner’s guide to using a human-rights-based approach: applications in small-scale fisheries

Elena M. Finkbeiner,1 Juno Fitzpatrick, Lily Z. Zhao, Gabrielle Lout, Marissa Anne S. Miller, Juan Carlos Jeri, and John N. Kittinger

©2025 Elena M. Finkbeiner, et al., CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0395.16

“Realizing the rights of fishing communities is not an option. It is an obligation.”
—Chandrika Sharma

Following major concerns about the environmental sustainability of seafood production, over the last several decades, governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), researchers, and industry have invested significant resources in trying to reduce overfishing, minimize the environmental impacts of fishing and aquaculture activity, and build supply-chain incentives and consumer awareness around seafood sustainability.

There is now mounting evidence and increasing recognition that environmental sustainability efforts have been stunted or undermined by a lack of attention to the underlying social dimension in the sector, and worse, human wellbeing is at stake; the people employed in fisheries face human rights and labor abuses, chronic poverty, and systemic inequality. While fishworkers, civil society organizations, and researchers have worked to elevate these issues for decades, recent investigative journalism has brought the pervasiveness and urgency of these issues to the public eye, with continually emerging instances of human rights violations in fisheries around the world (Levitt, 2016; Marschke and Vandergeest, 2016; Kittinger et al., 2017; Greenpeace, 2018).

We can no longer afford to ignore the human side behind seafood production. The need to use a ‘human-rights-based approach’ (HRBA) to fisheries management and conservation has never been more clear, yet coherent guidance for practitioners is still lacking. Recent scholarship has pointed to the important role of practitioners at international conservation NGOs working at the nexus of human rights and fisheries sustainability, given their geographic reach across countries and fishing communities and strong connections with governments and powerful market players (Singleton et al., 2017; Smallhorn-West et al., 2023). Furthermore, many of the international conservation NGOs have formally committed to respecting and protecting human rights, following decades of conservation malpractice that unintentionally worked to undermine community wellbeing and human rights (CIHR, 2010). Well-intentioned fisheries management and conservation efforts that do not consider the social inequities and power differentials occurring in global seafood value chains can further exacerbate these issues, in contravention of a “do-no-harm” approach (Anderson, 1999). There is a strong need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of fisheries managers and practitioners in accordance with do-no-harm principles, and in the progressive realization of human rights established in internationally agreed-upon frameworks.

This chapter aims to provide definitions of and guidance on using an HRBA for conservation practitioners (who are, in some cases, de facto managers) working with fishing communities, on fisheries governance and policy, or in seafood value chains. We will begin by clarifying the roles and responsibilities of states, supply-chain actors, and international conservation NGOs, under primary and internationally agreed-upon human rights frameworks. Next, we will discuss the emergence of an HRBA in development practice and shortly thereafter in fisheries management and conservation, namely through the FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (FAO, 2015). We will then describe an emerging movement to address human rights abuses in fisheries conservation through seafood value-chain interventions and discuss the gaps inherent in this approach with the latter. We will end by basing our recommendations on these perceived gaps on HRBAs in fisheries, targeted specifically for conservation practitioners either working with fishing communities, in governance and policy, with supply-chain actors, or in influencing funding/financing spheres.

According to international human rights treaties, customary law, and the primary instruments governing the protection of human rights,2 nation states are designated as the primary duty-bearers in upholding human rights, and are tasked with three obligations: respect, protect, and fulfill. Its obligation to respect implies that the duty bearer itself must not infringe upon human rights. The obligation to protect characterizes the duty bearer’s role in ensuring third parties (such as businesses) do not infringe upon human rights. Finally, the obligation to fulfill sets forth the task of a duty bearer to actively promote the positive realization of human rights. Whereas respect of and protection for human rights are regarded as immediate obligations of the duty bearer, the fulfillment of human rights can be achieved through progressive realization over time.

It is important to highlight the relevance and importance of all human rights in fisheries, noting that human rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible, and interdependent. Yet, there is a tendency in fisheries interventions to perpetuate a false dichotomy and prioritization between Civil and Political (CP) rights, and Economic, Social, and Cultural (ESC) rights (Allison et al., 2011; Teh et al., 2019; Finkbeiner et al., 2021). Example violations of CP rights in fisheries are when workers aboard a fishing vessel are discriminated against, treated inhumanely, held against their will, or do not have formal rights to organize. However, human trafficking and deplorable labor conditions are not the only violations of human rights and may be accompanied by other serious, but less elevated social issues. For example, when foreign fleets overfish in the Exclusive Economic Zone of developing countries, such that fishing as a livelihood or way of life is no longer economically viable, or communities’ rights to food security are undermined, this is a violation of ESC rights. Where CP rights violations are more easily litigated by application of international conventions and national criminal, maritime, and labor laws, ESC rights violations are often perceived as systemic issues where it is much harder to determine who is accountable and how remediation occurs (Teh et al., 2019). Furthermore, countries such as the United States of America have yet to ratify the International Covenant for Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966) due to the perception that ESC rights are desirable social goals, but not human rights (Svadlenak-Gomez, 2007). In addition to CP and ESC rights, collective rights are critically important to uphold in fisheries, such as Indigenous Peoples’ rights to lands, territories, and resources (UNDRIP, 2007).

Fig. 16.1 Human rights violations in fisheries.

Obligations of businesses are further clarified with the adoption of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP, 2011). The UNGPs set expectations of states and businesses about how to prevent and address negative impacts on human rights, and provide guidance on operationalizing existing international human rights standards. Businesses are obliged to respect human rights and provide remedy in the event that they contribute to human rights violations. The UNGPs further outline steps for businesses to comply with this international standard: 1) make a public commitment to respect human rights; 2) identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for damage caused to human rights; and 3) disclose procedures for remedying negative consequences on human rights that they cause. Protecting human rights against business-related abuse is expected of all states, and, in most cases, is a legal obligation through their ratification of legally binding international human rights treaties. At the same time, the UNGPs state:

The responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate. It exists independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfill their own human rights obligations and does not diminish those obligations. And it exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights” (UNGP, 2011, p. 13).

In addition to the role of civil society and international organizations as a “moral duty bearer” (Boesen and Martin, 2007), some conservation NGOs have committed more formally to the obligations of duty bearer (Singleton et al., 2017). Following years of concerning practice by conservation NGOs with respect to human rights (Chapin, 2004; Brockington and Igoe, 2006; Agrawal and Redford, 2009; Smallhorn-West et al., 2023), the Conservation and Human Rights Framework was created to set forth agreed-upon principles that seek to uphold human rights in conservation, including: respect human rights, promote human rights within conservation programs, protect the vulnerable, and encourage good governance. This framework was adopted in 2010 by the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights (CIHR, 2010), a consortium of international conservation organizations including the World Wildlife Fund, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, and the Wildlife Conservation Society. In addition to respecting human rights in conservation practice through the adoption of this framework, these NGOs have also committed to protecting human rights from infringement by third parties and to fulfilling the progressive realization of human rights in rights holders (i.e., communities, workers, fishers) within the scope of conservation programs (Singleton et al., 2017).

The emergence of HRBA in fisheries development and conservation programs

Today, conservation organizations are increasingly attempting to address environmental problems, societal needs and the fair treatment of people in concert; however, this was not always the case. Below we describe the emergence of an HRBA in development practice and thereafter in fisheries management and conservation.

Fig. 16.2 A timeline summary of the emergence of HRBA in fisheries development and conservation programs.

Beginning in the late 1990s, development scholars and practitioners increasingly acknowledged that their field had both benefited from and contributed to global inequity and unsustainability—be it through historical ties to Western imperialism, racism, or contemporary resource extraction (Sen, 1999; Reidy and Rozwadowski, 2014; Bennet et al, 2021). By the early 2000s, numerous national and multilateral development agencies and NGOs committed to participatory, or human-rights-based approaches rather than solely an economic-growth-based approach. While an HRBA remained nebulously defined and operationalized differently across organizations, the United Nations adopted a common definition, which includes the following necessary, specific, and unique elements: 1) assessment and analysis to identify the human rights claims of rights-holders and the corresponding human rights obligations of duty-bearers, as well as the immediate, underlying, and structural causes of the non-realization of rights; 2) programs to assess the capacity of rights-holders to claim their rights, and of duty-bearers to fulfill their obligations. They then develop strategies to build these capacities; 3) programs to monitor and evaluate both outcomes and processes guided by human rights standards and principles; 4) programming informed by the recommendations of international human rights bodies and mechanisms (UN, 2003). Other core tenets of an HRBA include: people are recognized as key actors in their own development; participation is both a means and a goal; development strategies are empowering, not disempowering; stakeholder analyses are inclusive; development programs focus on marginalized, disadvantaged, and excluded groups; and the development process is locally owned (UN, 2003). By the 2010s, conservation organizations began exploring and committing to human-rights-based approaches to conservation (CIHR, 2010; Springer et al., 2011), in response to concerns about conservation malpractice in Indigenous and resource-dependent communities (Chapin, 2004) and as linkages between human rights, development, and conservation agendas were increasingly recognized (Svadlenak-Gomez, 2007).

Initially, the adoption of HRBA in fisheries lagged behind other sectors due to a prioritization and focus on limiting access and fishing rights to address ecological collapse and economic inefficiencies (Allison, 2011). At the turn of the 21st century, fisheries development initiatives focused on securing property rights and marine spatial tenure for fishers, while marine conservation initiatives were historically underpinned by spatial exclusion of fishers with the singular goal of ecosystem protection. Over the last 20 years, it has become increasingly apparent that insecure rights of access are not the only insecurity faced by fisherfolk—income and asset poverty, discrimination, marginalization, and vulnerability are also at stake (Allison et al., 2012). Additionally, there have been instances where the allocation of fishing rights under new legislation undermined human rights by excluding the small-scale sector (Jaffer and Sunde, 2006).

Meanwhile, marine protected areas without local participation or just allocation continued to produce social inequities (Christie, 2004) and are now under increasing scrutiny with respect to key issues including physical dispossession (Masifundise and Kontakt, 2014) and ocean grabbing (Bennett et al., 2015). Within this context, small-scale fisherfolk are reclaiming their rights and arguing for a new interpretation of a rights-based approach, and new basis for fisheries development strategies focused not only on securing spatial tenure but also on rights holders’ claims to their basic entitlements: enough food, decent work, freedom from oppression, and the right to a dignified life (Allison et al., 2012). Thus, an HRBA approach to fisheries conservation and management encompasses an expanded definition of ‘rights’ to be secured beyond that of fishing rights or property rights; it emphasizes prioritization of meeting a communities’ basic human rights and socio-economic needs as a precondition to engaging them in effective sustainable resource governance—which is, in turn, a pre-condition for integration into global seafood markets (Allison et al., 2012).

While many scholars and practitioners began to rally around HRBA in fisheries, others offered important critiques of the model. For example, Ruddle and Davis (2013) discuss the construct of human rights as a western neoliberal philosophy, with a focus on individual freedoms subsequently minimizing the importance of collective rights of and social roles within fishing communities. Based on this premise, the concept of human dignity in place of human rights may be a more nuanced, yet broadly applicable and culturally acceptable application within fisheries (Song, 2015). It remained unclear how HRBA would be operationalized in the context of the fishing sector.

However, momentum shifted in 2014, when the 31st Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) adopted the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF Guidelines), creating the legal scaffolding for sector-specific human rights protection and fulfillment (FAO, 2015). The SSF Guidelines were designed in consultation with more than 4,000 fisheries stakeholders and provide the first global voluntary agreement by which to consider international human rights-based standards in the context of fisheries management. The SSF Guidelines include guidance tailored to member states (but applicable more broadly) on realizing six focal areas in a manner that respects, protects, and fulfills human rights for fishers specifically. Those six focal areas include: 1) resource management; 2) governance of tenure; 3) value chains and trade; 4) social development and decent work; 5) disaster risks and climate change; and 6) gender equality. The SSF Guidelines articulate the full suite of human rights as necessary for the wellbeing of fishing communities, including fishers’ rights to basic services, participatory governance, equality and non-discrimination, decent work and standards of living, access to avenues of justice, rights of women and youth, and additional fishing access rights for Indigenous Peoples. The next challenge became how the SSF Guidelines as a voluntary instrument would be adopted by governments and embedded into national policy. Relevant to this chapter, international conservation NGOs have been identified as well placed to aid in the implementation of the SSF Guidelines given their extensive geographic reach and relationships with government, industry, and communities, but they will need to fully lean into using an HRBA (Singleton et al., 2017).

The sustainable seafood movement takes on social responsibility and human rights

Subsequent to the emergence of HRBA in fisheries development and conservation programs, a parallel community of practice has begun to take on human rights via seafood value-chain interventions. The seafood sustainability movement, growing in popularity over the last several decades, is a community of practice dedicated to driving environmental sustainability in seafood production through the use of market-based interventions (i.e., certifications, ratings, and benchmarking schemes) (Roheim et al., 2018). Critical to this theory of change, some conservation NGOs have formed partnerships with businesses and seafood supply-chain actors to facilitate their engagement with and improvements in environmental sustainability efforts, under the umbrella of the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions (Conservation Alliance). In North America, over 80% of the top 25 retailers have partnerships with NGOs from the Conservation Alliance, and increasingly, the Conservation Alliance is comprised of NGOs from across Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

While the movement has prioritized environmental sustainability in previous years, in response to recent media revelations about forced labor and human trafficking in fisheries (i.e., Levitt, 2014), human rights and social responsibility have emerged as new priorities. For example, a group of actors from within and outside the seafood sustainability movement led the development of the Monterey Framework, a consensus-driven definition of social responsibility in the seafood sector, inclusive of three principles: 1) protecting human rights, dignity, and access to resources; 2) ensuring equality and the equitable opportunity to benefit; and 3) improving food and livelihood security (Kittinger et al., 2017). Likewise, the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions has recently revised their Vision for Seafood (CASS, 2023) and Guidelines for Supporting Fishery Improvement Projects (CASS, 2022) to include elements of human and labor rights. Beyond this, the seafood sustainability movement has seen a proliferation of both NGO- and industry-led certifications, vessel codes of conduct, and other forms of market-based interventions intended to drive social improvements. Many of these market-based interventions are focused on egregious forms of abuse in fisheries (human trafficking and forced labor) in the offshore and industrial sector, where the risk of these abuses occurring is particularly high (Tickler et al., 2018; McDonald et al., 2021).

These efforts are critically important for protecting fishers’ and workers’ rights at sea, something that is long overdue. However, their focus on protecting the rights of fishers and workers offshore has disregarded the rights of those working nearshore or onshore, namely women, who account for 40% of fishworkers globally, and small-scale fishers, who comprise 90% of the global fisheries labor force (FAO, 2015; Finkbeiner et al., 2021; FAO, Duke University & Worldfish, 2023). This has also inadvertently shifted priorities away from the suite of ESC rights that are of particular importance for small-scale fishing communities, such as the right to food, education, healthcare, and decent work (Allison et al., 2011; Finkbeiner et al., 2021). Furthermore, many of the market-based interventions that have emerged in recent years have been critiqued by labor experts due to their overreliance on voluntary commitments, lack of meaningful involvement by fishworker organizations, inappropriate application of environmental sustainability models in the context of human rights, and inadequate treatment of human rights and labor principles (Sparks et al., 2022; HRAS, 2023; William and Sparks, 2023).

The central challenge for conservation practitioners remains: how can we effectively implement a human rights-based approach in our fisheries work, drawing from previous and parallel experiences and lessons learned? Specifically, there is an imperative need to elevate the rights of women and small-scale fisheries in the seafood sustainability movement and draw from the experiences of integrating HRBA in fisheries development and conservation programs. The recommendations for conservation practitioners we outline below are intended to bridge the chasm across these parallel movements and consider all human rights as indivisible.

In light of conservation NGOs’ moral duty and commitment to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights under the CIHR, and their vital role as bridging organizations among communities, governments, supply chains, and funders (Singleton et al., 2017), we will end with a set of recommendations targeted towards conservation practitioners. These recommendations are specifically designed for their work with: 1) fishers, fishworkers, fishing communities, and their representative organizations; 2) governments and policymakers; 3) businesses and supply chain actors; and 4) funders. Given the many interpretations of an HRBA, we align our recommendations within the three dimensions of an HRBA articulated by the UN FAO: 1) embedding human rights within conservation and management processes; 2) using human rights as a guiding framework or objective of fisheries interventions; and 3) building capacity among actors, including rights holders and duty bearers (FAO, 2016). Our recommendations emphasize the importance of taking both a bottom-up and top-down HRBA in fisheries (while recognizing that some conservation practitioners have more leverage in certain areas), and that an HRBA to fisheries conservation and management involves a locally driven and locally owned process (UN, 2003).

First and foremost, it is important to have institutional support for applying human rights in the conservation or management of fisheries (i.e., the practitioner’s organization has already committed to integrating an HRBA). In this way, practitioners can receive proper training, guidance, and financial resources for integrating human rights into their work. Even so, the organization may lack programmatic coherence in the application of human rights principles; certain programs may prioritize the integration of human rights relative to others, necessitating institution-wide dialogue on alignment. Increasingly, conservation NGOs are interested in integrating Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) into human resource management, programs, and projects. This may also provide a foundation for using an HRBA. For example, efforts to ensure greater diversity of staff members who are representative of the cultures and geographies where projects are implemented, and efforts to embed more equitable and inclusive engagement with communities is consistent with using a human-rights-based approach. In any case, conservation and management practitioners may consider partnering with experts from development, labor and human rights fields, and civil society organizations or other frontline groups representing fishworkers, who already possess the relevant expertise and experience and can serve as important guides in this work.

Fig. 16.3 Unpacking a human rights-based approach (HRBA)

Working with fishers, fishworkers, fishing communities, and representative organizations

Conservation NGOs stand to fill a unique and vital role as they often work simultaneously with fishing communities, governments, and businesses. These diverse partnerships increase their potential to initiate collaboration and protect and fulfill human rights from multiple angles. Yet, historically, conservation organizations have not respected human rights—which is an antecedent to protecting and fulfilling them. In order to remain legitimate and trusted, organizations must complete actions within the ‘respect’ realm as a bare minimum, prior to protecting and fulfilling human rights at a scale beyond their own institutional actions. This must include taking accountability for past harms and human rights violations and a commitment towards reconciliation.

Critical to the conservation practitioner’s role in respecting the human rights of fishworkers and fishing communities, and ensuring that their activities and programs are not undermining human rights, is the embedding of principles of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, transparency, human dignity, empowerment, and the rule of law (PANTHER) within all stages of conservation or management processes, including during design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation (FAO, 2016). Imperative to this is the recognition that participation is not inherently equitable, and vulnerable and marginalized groups face structural barriers to fully participate in or benefit from participatory processes. Thus, prioritization of vulnerable and marginalized groups and individuals is a principal tenet of an HRBA (Willmann et al., 2017). Achieving Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) from Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities is also central to an HRBA, where “Free” refers to the absence of coercion, intimidation, or manipulation; “Prior” refers to when consent is sought sufficiently in advance of any authorization or commencement of conservation or management activities, with respect shown to the time requirements of Indigenous consultation or consensus processes; and “Informed” refers to the provision of information that covers a range of aspects (UNDRIP, 2007). Importantly, communities must be allowed to withhold consent. A characteristic of an HRBA is that it is locally-driven or -owned (UN, 2003), with fishers, workers and communities as primary decision-makers and centrally involved.

Additional practices to respect human rights in conservation and management include implementation of human rights evaluations (i.e., HRBA situational analysis or human rights impact assessment (HRIA)) (Harris-Curtis et al., 2005) to determine whether rights belonging to the individual or group are being violated, and if so, by whom. These analyses focus specifically on identifying: the immediate and underlying causes of rights violations and obstacles to rights fulfillment; the views of the concerned people on rights and rights violations; their awareness of their rights and any violations; their priorities for action; who the duty bearers are that are responsible for upholding rights and preventing violations; and whether the duty bearers are aware of their responsibilities and have capacity to uphold them. Conservation organizations must also, at a minimum, create grievance- and conflict-resolution mechanisms by which individuals or communities can report concerns as part of all conservation initiatives and management processes (Singleton et al., 2017).

In addition to respecting human rights in their own conservation and management activities when working with fishworkers and fishing communities, some conservation practitioners have also committed to protecting and fulfilling human rights under the CIHR. The application of guiding frameworks in conservation programs and projects (such as the SSF Guidelines) that prioritize the realization of human rights as critical objectives and outcomes—beyond ensuring ‘do no harm’—is an important step towards achieving this goal (FAO, 2016). Furthermore, NGOs can help to build the capacity of rights holders for this work by training fishers, workers, and communities on their rights, and facilitating access to mechanisms for claiming their rights (Sharma, 2011; Ratner et al., 2014). Practitioners are also in a unique position to elevate the voices of fishers, workers, and communities in international policy circles and within seafood supply chains, by acting as interlocutors bridging power differentials (Singleton et al., 2017), and by supporting the independent actions of locally rooted civil society (Banks et al., 2015).

Working in governance and policy

Conservation NGOs can also play a pivotal role in actively promoting the realization of human rights, and in influencing third parties such as governments to provide greater protection of the rights of fishworkers and fishing communities.

To promote human rights protections in the seafood sector, conservation NGOs can advocate for the ratification and implementation of the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, or ILO C188 (2007, No. 188). If implemented, ILO C188 establishes minimum decent work standards to improve the safety, health, and medical care for workers on board fishing vessels and provides adequate protection (written work agreement, social security protections, etc.) for all of the people who work in this sector. Conservation NGOs can look to engage their respective ministries, industry representatives, labor and human rights groups, fishers and their representatives, and civic society organizations to ensure that the C188 ratification process and domestic legislation is effective and far-reaching (ILRF, 2018). Similarly, Conservation NGOs can urge governments to adopt other frameworks addressing decent work and safety at sea, such as the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA, 2009), the IMO Cape Town Agreement (CTA, 2012) and IMO Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel (STCW-F, 1995).

Conservation NGOs can advocate for and support government adoption of the SSF Guidelines to ensure an HRBA is embedded within national policies relevant to small-scale fisheries. Meaningful adoption of the SSF Guidelines will require integration into domestic legal frameworks and policy coherence across development, labor, fisheries, and environment agencies. Advising on legal reforms and tracking legislative efforts can therefore be a tangible way for conservation NGOs to create the enabling environment for the realization of fishworkers and communities’ rights to equitable development (FAO, 2020). Numerous resources and guides exist to enable this support, such as: Legislating for Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries—A guide and considerations for implementing aspects of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication in National Legislation (FAO, 2020). Furthermore, conservation NGOs can encourage states to enshrine economic, social, and cultural rights in their constitution, statutory legislation, and customary practices to ensure compliance with International Human Rights Law—enforcing the rights to equality and equitable opportunity to benefit from food and livelihood security in coastal states (Graham and D’Andrea, 2021). Conservation NGOs can further encourage governments to prohibit discrimination against women in line with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, 1979), supporting the intersecting agendas of bolstering human rights and conservation outcomes.

Practitioners can also proactively cultivate knowledge exchanges with governments to build their capacity as duty bearers to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights under existing and emerging legislation. Conservation NGOs can contribute to the development of reliable data, the documentation of best practices, and the promotion of responsibilities and accountability mechanisms for duty bearers to meet their obligations to rights holders. In many cases, fishworkers and their communities lack access to justice, the right to an effective remedy, and legal redress for infringement of their rights. As such, conservation practitioners can look at raising awareness among rights holders in small-scale fishing communities about claiming their rights, accessing associated legal services, and holding duty bearers accountable for legitimate tenure rights, rights against arbitrary forced eviction, the right to an adequate standard of living, labor and social security rights, and the rights of women, Indigenous Peoples, and other vulnerable and marginalized groups (FAO, 2016).

Conservation practitioners can play a vital role in holding businesses and supply-chain actors accountable in their responsibility to respect human rights and can work alongside businesses to build capacity for meaningful worker-driven human rights due diligence in seafood value chains.

Advocacy-oriented practitioners play an important role in promoting compliance with national laws and international obligations concerning human and labor rights through whistleblowing and watchdog efforts. These efforts are critical for raising awareness about non-compliant private sector actors and emerging social responsibility issues and human rights threats. Thus, watchdog and sentinel roles can catalyze substantial private sector and government action and can further bring buyers and NGOs to the table to discuss potential solutions to critical challenges and reinforce accountability mechanisms (CEA, 2020).

To date, business commitments to human rights and the environment in the seafood sector have been voluntary and market-driven (e.g., certifications). While these commitments show progress, they are limited in their ability to reduce the adverse impacts of business operations (Kittinger et al., 2020; Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, 2021). As outlined in the UNGPs, businesses must move beyond public commitments and actively identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they will address adverse human rights impacts. This includes assessing actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating, and acting on the findings, tracking responses, and communicating about how impacts are addressed. However, given that seafood supply chains are often long and opaque, mapping supply chains, assessing risks, and acting on these findings to improve fishworker welfare can be intimidating for businesses. Conservation practitioners can help fulfill these capacity gaps through one-on-one relationships with businesses or by participating as key partners in pre-competitive platforms (i.e., NGO-coordinated industry groups).

Beyond its reference in the UNGPs, legal requirements for human rights due diligence are rapidly changing in Europe and across the globe. As a trading bloc, the EU has introduced foundational sustainable corporate governance legislation in 2021, which will impose human rights and environmental due diligence to all companies in all sectors (including seafood) operating in the EU market. Thus, there is a salient opportunity for conservation practitioners, particularly those with longstanding business relationships, to guide the business sector in this shift towards full supply-chain due diligence, combining genuine worker representation, enforceable and legally binding agreements, and changes to purchasing practices (ILRF, 2018). Practitioners can support supply-chain actors’ pathway from addressing only the visible human rights violations and known risks towards mitigating potential risks and ultimately, towards mitigating their root causes in seafood-producing geographies.

While guidance for businesses on respecting labor rights in industrial fishing operations is relatively well-developed (RISE, 2021), there is an urgent need to bolster guidance for businesses to reduce adverse human rights impacts on small-scale fishworkers and their communities, particularly with respect to their rights to food, decent work, gender equity and freedom from gender-based violence, and Indigenous Peoples’ rights. For example, conservation practitioners can help businesses to understand and support the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, such that they identify and respect Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ formal and customary rights to lands, territories, and resources in the context of any company activity and ensure that their free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) is secured before any activity that may affect Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights, land, resources, territories, livelihoods, or food security. In the development of this guidance, NGO partnerships with civil society organizations, frontline groups, and fishworker-led organizations are critical for understanding fishworker and community needs and priorities to ensure these are ultimately addressed.

Typically, the influence of donors on NGO agendas is unidirectional, with donors determining strategic priorities and programs, to which NGOs must demonstrate alignment to receive funding. Oftentimes, civil society organizations or local NGOs do not have the capacity to seek out funding opportunities, and international NGOs act as gatekeepers or de facto grantors. Thus, once funding reaches local NGOs, civil society organizations, or community groups, it may reflect the agendas and priorities of large international NGOs and their funders and be less rooted in local realities and priorities, running counter to an HRBA and providing dubious outcomes for communities and conservation (Chapin, 2004).

However, in some cases, there are direct or indirect opportunities for NGOs to influence funding priorities. For example, NGOs may utilize positive working relationships with funders to encourage: 1) the development of fisheries-specific HRBA-oriented funding opportunities; 2) straightforward and uncomplicated regranting requirements and processes; 3) flexibility on grant objectives, activities, and outcomes so that the ultimate application of funds is determined by local civil society organizations, frontline groups, and communities. NGOs can also influence funding streams by incorporating HRBA fisheries initiatives into their grant proposals to donor organizations, by ensuring a substantial proportion of their grants reach fishing communities and their representative organizations, and finally by committing to locally led projects and grant activities determined by fishwoker organizations and fishing communities.

In summary, conservation practitioners have a moral and legal obligation to respect the human rights of fishers, fishworkers, and coastal communities where they work (Smallhorn-West et al., 2023). Critically, international conservation NGOs are well-poised to support the adoption and implementation of HRBA instruments such as the SSF Guidelines given their geographic reach across countries and fishing communities, and strong connections with governments and market players (Singleton et al., 2017). Furthermore, many of the international conservation NGOs have formally committed to protecting and fulfilling human rights, following decades of conservation malpractice that unintentionally worked to undermine community wellbeing and human rights (CIHR, 2010).

Given the importance of putting an HRBA into practice as a conservation organization, in this chapter we sought to clarify for conservation practitioners what this means and how to do it by: 1) clarifying the roles and responsibilities of states, supply-chain actors, and international conservation NGOs, under primary internationally agreed-upon human rights frameworks; 2) discussing the emergence of an HRBA in development practice and shortly thereafter in fisheries management and conservation efforts; and 3) providing recommendations targeted specifically for conservation practitioners on using an HRBA while working with fishing communities, in governance and policy, with supply-chain actors, or in influencing funding/financing spheres. We hope this chapter has helped to demystify what a human-rights-based approach is: 1) embedding principles of human rights within conservation and management processes, to at a minimum, meet the legal obligation of respecting human rights; 2) looking to human rights frameworks and standards as objectives of programs and projects; and 3) building expertise or seeking partnerships with existing expertise to support the progressive realization of rights through capacity building with duty bearers and rightsholders. We also hope conservation practitioners will benefit from the tangible steps for implementing an HRBA when engaging different actors, as we have outlined in the Best Practices section. In conclusion, regardless of a conservation practitioner’s particular role as a researcher, project implementer, convener, mediator, or advocator, we urge everyone to consider the guidance outlined in this chapter, to ultimately support enduring improvements for human wellbeing and environment sustainability.

Allison, E. H. (2011). Should states and international organizations adopt a human rights approach to fisheries policy? https://digitalarchive.worldfishcenter.org/handle/20.500.12348/1125

Allison, E. H., Åsgård, B., & Willmann, R. (2011). Human rights approaches to governing fisheries. https://digitalarchive.worldfishcenter.org/handle/20.500.12348/1091

Allison, E. H., Ratner, B. D., Åsgård, B., Willmann, R., Pomeroy, R., & Kurien, J. (2012). Rights-based fisheries governance: From fishing rights to human rights. Fish and Fisheries, 13(1), 14-29.

Anderson, M. B. (1999). Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – Or War. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort? World Development, 66, 707-718.

Bennett, N. J., Govan, H., & Satterfield, T. (2015). Ocean grabbing. Marine Policy, 57, 61-68.

Bennett, N. J., Katz, L., Yadao-Evans, W., Ahmadia, G. N., Atkinson, S., Ban, N. C., ... & Wilhelm, A. (2021). Advancing social equity in and through marine conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 711538.

Boesen, J. K., & Martin, T. (2007). Applying a rights-based approach: An inspirational guide to civil society. The Danish Institute for Human Rights.

Brockington, D., & Igoe, J. (2006). Eviction for conservation: A global overview. Conservation & Society, 4, 424-470.

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (2021). All at sea: An evaluation of company efforts to address modern slavery in Pacific supply chains of canned tuna. Retrieved from https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/from-us/briefings/all-at-sea-an-evaluation-of-company-efforts-to-address-modern-slavery-in-pacific-supply-chains-of-canned-tuna/

CASS. (2022). Guidelines for supporting Fishery Improvement Projects. Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions. https://solutionsforseafood.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FIP-Guidelines-Apr2023.pdf

CASS. (2023). A vision for seafood. Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions. https://solutionsforseafood.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/VISION-for-Seafood-Apr2023-FINAL.pdf

CEA. (2020). Global landscape review of fishery improvement projects (FIPs). CEA Consulting.

CEDAW. (1979). Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

Chapin, M. (2004). A challenge to conservationists. World Watch Magazine. World Watch Institute.

CIHR. (2010). Conservation Initiative on Human Rights. http://www.thecihr.org/

Christie, P. (2004, January). Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in Southeast Asia. In American Fisheries Society Symposium (Vol. 42, No. 155-164).

Conservation International. (2021). Actioning the Monterey Framework. https://riseseafood.org/topics/actioning-the-monterey-framework/

CTA. (2012). IMO Cape Town Agreement.

Finkbeiner, E. M., Fitzpatrick, J., & Yadao-Evans, W. (2021). A call for protection of women’s rights and economic, social, cultural (ESC) rights in seafood value chains. Marine Policy, 128, 104482.

FAO. (2015). Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Rome, Italy.

FAO. (2016). Human rights based approach to the implementation and monitoring of the SSF Guidelines: Background paper. Rome, Italy.

FAO. (2020). Legislating for sustainable small-scale fisheries. A guide and considerations for implementing aspects of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/3/cb0885en/CB0885EN.pdf

FAO, Duke University & WorldFish. (2023). Illuminating Hidden Harvests – The contributions of small-scale fisheries to sustainable development. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc4576en

Graham, A., & D’Andrea, A. (2021). Gender and human rights in coastal fisheries and aquaculture. A comparative analysis of legislation in Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu. Noumea, New Caledonia: Pacific Community.

Greenpeace. (2018). Misery at sea: human suffering in Taiwan’s distant water fishing fleets.

Harris-Curtis, E., Marleyn, O., & Bakewell, O. (2005). The implications for northern NGOs of adopting rights-based approaches (Occasional papers series, 41). International NGO Training Centre.

International Labour Organization. (1978). Convention concerning Tripartite Consultations to Promote the Implementation of International Labour Standards (Entry into force: 16 May 1978). Retrieved from: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C144

International Labour Organization. (2022). ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up. Retrieved from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---declaration/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_716594.pdf

ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188)

ILRF. (2018). Taking stock: labor exploitation, illegal fishing, and brand responsibility in the seafood industry. International Labor Rights Forum. https://laborrights.org/sites/default/files/publications/Taking%20Stock%20final.pdf

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966

ITF. (2006). Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Seafarers, Fishers & Human Rights. International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). https://issuu.com/sdm2007/docs/humanrights

Jaffer, N., & Sunde, J. (2006). Fishing rights vs. human rights. Samudra Report, 44, 83-86.

Jonas, H., Roe, D., & Makagon, J. E. (2014). Human rights standards for conservation: An analysis of responsibilities. Rights Redress Just Conserv.

Kittinger, J. N., Bernard, M., Finkbeiner, E. M., Murphy, E., Obregon, P., Klinger, D. H., Schoon, M. L., Dooley, K. J., & Gerber, L. R. (2020). Applying a jurisdictional approach to support sustainable seafood. Conservation Science and Practice, e386. http://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.386

Kittinger, J. N., Teh, L. C. L., Allison, E. H., Bennett, N. J., Crowder, L. B., Finkbeiner, E. M., Hicks, C., Scarton, C. G., Nakamura, K., Ota, Y., Young, J., Alifano, A., Apel, A., Arbib, A., Bishop, L., Boyle, M., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Hunter, P., Cornu, E. L., … Wilhelm, T. ’Aulani. (2017). Committing to socially responsible seafood. Science, 356(6341), 912–913. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9969

Levitt, T. (2016). Our love of seafood is tainted by slavery: how can it be fixed? The Guardian.

Marschke, M., & Vandergeest, P. (2016). Slavery scandals: Unpacking labour challenges and policy responses within the off-shore fisheries sector. Marine Policy, 68, 39-46.

McDonald, G. G., Costello, C., Bone, J., Cabral, R. B., Farabee, V., Hochberg, T., ... & Zahn, O. (2021). Satellites can reveal the global extent of forced labor in the world’s fishing fleet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(3).

PSMA. (2009). FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing.

Ratner, B. D., Åsgård, B., & Allison, E. H. (2014). Fishing for justice: Human rights, development, and fisheries sector reform. Global Environmental Change, 27, 120-130.

Reidy, M. S., & Rozwadowski, H. M. (2014). The spaces in between: Science, ocean, empire. Isis, 105, 338–351.

RISE. (2021). Actioning the Monterey Framework. Retrieved from https://riseseafood.org/topics/actioning-the-monterey-framework/

Roheim, C. A., Bush, S. R., Asche, F., Sanchirico, J. N., & Uchida, H. (2018). Evolution and future of the sustainable seafood market. Nature Sustainability, 1(8), 392-398.

Ruddle, K., & Davis, A. (2013). Human rights and neo-liberalism in small-scale fisheries: Conjoined priorities and processes. Marine Policy, 39, 87-93.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. In The globalization and development reader: Perspectives on development and global change (pp. 525).

Sharma, C. (2011). Securing economic, social and cultural rights of small-scale and artisanal fisherworkers and fishing communities. Maritime Studies, 10(2), 41-62.

Singleton, R. L., Allison, E. H., Le Billon, P., & Sumaila, U. R. (2017). Conservation and the right to fish: International conservation NGOs and the implementation of the voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 84, 22-32.

Smallhorn-West, P., Allison, E., Gurney, G., Karnad, D., Kretser, H., Lobo, A. S., ... & Peckham, S. H. (2023). Why human rights matter for marine conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science, 10, 214.

Song, A. M. (2015). Human dignity: A fundamental guiding value for a human rights approach to fisheries?. Marine Policy, 61, 164-170.

Sparks, J. L. D., Matthews, L., Cárdenas, D., & Williams, C. (2022). Worker-less social responsibility: How the proliferation of voluntary labour governance tools in seafood marginalise the workers they claim to protect. Marine Policy, 139, 105044.

Springer, J., Campese, J., & Painter, M. (2011). Conservation and Human Rights: Key Issues and Contexts. Scoping Paper for the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Environment/ImplementationReport/IUCN3.pdf

STCW-F. (1995). IMO Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel.

Svadlenak-Gomez, K. (2007). Integrating human rights into conservation programming. Human rights and Conservation, USAID.

Teh, L. C., Caddell, R., Allison, E. H., Finkbeiner, E. M., Kittinger, J. N., Nakamura, K., & Ota, Y. (2019). The role of human rights in implementing socially responsible seafood. PLoS One, 14(1), e0210241.

Tickler, D., Meeuwig, J. J., Bryant, K., David, F., Forrest, J. A., Gordon, E., ... & Zeller, D. (2018). Modern slavery and the race to fish. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1-9.

TNI Agrarian Justice Programme, Masifundise and Afrika Kontakt. (2014). The Global Ocean Grab: A Primer.

UN. (2003). Statement on a common understanding of a human rights-based approach to development cooperation. United Nations.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007.

UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011.

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

Williams, C., & Sparks, J. L. D. (2023). Fishery improvement projects: A voluntary, corporate “tool” not fit for the purpose of mitigating labour abuses and guaranteeing labour rights for workers. Marine Policy, 147, 105340.

Willmann, R., Franz, N., Fuentevilla, C., McInerney, T. F., & Westlund, L. (2017). A human rights-based approach in small-scale fisheries: Evolution and challenges in implementation. In The Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines (pp. 763-787). Springer, Cham.

Whitlow, J. (2004). The Social Dimension of IUU Fishing (Jon Whitlow of the International Transport Workers’ Federation) (AGR/FI/IUU(2004)15). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Fisheries Committee. http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/fisheries/31492524.PDF