Building on her extensive work on Blue Justice (Leverhulme Grant) and Blue Economy (Pentland Centre), Dr Celine Germond-Duret reflects on the value of framing illegal fishing as an ocean justice issue rather than just a criminal phenomenon.

Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUUF) steals millions of tons of seafood annually, costing tens of billions of dollars and threatening the food security of nearly a billion people. IUUF disproportionately impacts small-scale fishers and coastal communities who depend on stable fisheries for their livelihoods and cultural heritage. Ending IUUF constitutes one of the targets of the SDG14 Life below Water. Compounding with other impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems and human systems, IUUF is a recognized driver of maritime insecurity, creating extra burden on maritime law enforcement.

Yet, IUUF is not just a crime; it is a symptom of structural inequalities, bad governance and social injustice. Ocean justice applies principles of fairness, equity, recognition, and accountability to marine governance. It demands that the benefits and burdens of ocean use are shared equitably, valuing and protecting vulnerable ecosystems, communities, and future generations. By framing IUUF as both a criminal issue and an environmental and social injustice, we can design a holistic roadmap for a sustainable use of the ocean that can ultimately decrease pressure on law enforcement.

1. Challenging dominant representations of the sea

Ocean justice requires challenging the prevailing terra-centric narratives that frame the sea as a placeless, ‘empty’ space, whose resources can simply be exploited without consideration for either marine ecosystems or community stakeholders. Such narrative systematically sidelines Indigenous and local fishers, undermining their traditional ecological knowledge and justifying extractive interventions. By reframing IUUF as not just a criminal enterprise but also a social injustice, policymakers can emphasise under-represented narratives and ensure small-scale fishers have a seat at the table in designing policies and compliance measures.

2. Co-creating policy with coastal communities

Framing IUUF primarily as a maritime security issue results in the adoption of state-centric solutions. Counter-IUUF policies and practice must emerge from genuine partnerships with those most affected. Inclusive and meaningful participation with ocean-dependent communities (including Indigenous peoples, local communities, small-scale fishers, women, children and young people) builds legitimacy and justice into policy design. Embedding these mechanisms into Port State measures and coastal licensing frameworks could transform enforcement from top-down policing into collaborative stewardship, where empowered communities become active agents in compliance (including community-based monitoring and reporting). Also, responsible entrepreneurship, subsidised local initiatives and community-led protection of marine areas ensures equitable ocean governance and access to blue space.

3. Justice-centred governance

Counter-IUUF measures have so far remained rather technical and framed within a maritime security approach (e.g. monitoring, control, and surveillance). Addressing the underlying drivers of IUUF and the consumption side (traceability, labelling) completes the IUUF governance apparatus. Considerations of blue justice for the vulnerable communities affected by IUUF (including victims of forced labour) need to drive strategies. Criminal justice tools (investigation, prosecution, asset forfeiture) should be directed at disrupting organised criminal networks and addressing corruption and other drivers of criminal activities, while also protecting the interests and livelihood of local stakeholders. To address the structural roots of the problem, IUUF governance and post-enforcement mechanisms must account for the specificities and need of impacted communities. This necessitates incorporating traditional marine tenure systems into national licensing databases to prevent illegal reflagging of vessels under convenience flags, instituting benefit-sharing agreements with coastal communities, and aligning fisheries crime protocols with just transitions frameworks to support sustainable livelihoods post-enforcement.

Conclusion

IUUF should not be understood as a sole maritime security issue but through a blue justice lens that centres on equity and inclusion. Framing IUUF solely as a threat to state sovereignty overlooks the deep-rooted social, cultural, and environmental impacts on coastal communities who rely on the ocean for their livelihoods and identity. A justice-centred approach requires valuing the knowledge and lived experience of these communities and recognizing them as partners in policy-making. Meaningful governance must move beyond state-centric models to empower Indigenous and coastal communities as equal partners, ensuring that strategies address the harms they face and reflect their needs, values and priorities. This approach is key to ensuring a sustainable use of the ocean that accounts for communities’ needs and address a pressing maritime security issue.

Related Blogs

• 

  Unsecurities Lab #1: Report from the First Workshop

• 

  Multi-layer Cybersecurity: A Responsible Perspective

• 

  Spreading the Message about Critical National Infrastructure Cybersecurity

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.