Transparency in the activities of the Food and Agriculture Organization for sustainable fisheries. (February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Guggisberg, Solène
• Is Part Of: Marine policy. Volume 136(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-02
• Subjects: Food and Agriculture Organization -- Clearing-house mechanism -- Fisheries -- Transparency; Marine resources -- Economic aspects -- Periodicals; Fisheries -- Periodicals; Ressources marines -- Aspect économique -- Périodiques; Pêches -- Périodiques; Fisheries; Marine resources -- Economic aspects; Periodicals; 333.916405
• DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104498
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0308-597X

Abstract

Abstract: The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) plays diverse roles in fisheries governance: it gathers and disseminates data and information; it serves as a forum for States to develop and adopt treaties and soft-law instruments; and it monitors the implementation of some of these instruments. Several of these functions rely on transparency, by the FAO or by States towards it. Beyond its specific role in relation to data sharing, transparency is a good governance principle contributing to accountability and enabling participation. This article examines how transparent the FAO is in its operations related to fisheries. The FAO was an early adopter of some aspects of sound practice in its approach to transparency, but now appears behind the curve: it lacks an access to information policy and its access to meetings policy does not account for treaty negotiations happening outside of governing body meetings. As a clearing house mechanism, the FAO is quite efficient but nevertheless could be clearer as to whether required information has been provided by States and why some information is restricted. Finally, as an entity monitoring the implementation of instruments, the FAO has developed an increasingly detailed naming and shaming technique to encourage States to respond to its requests for information. However, beyond this information on the identity of responders and some general aggregated data on the substance of the response, very little is made public. As States are acting towards the public interest through the FAO, it is hard to defend opacity in such matters. Highlights: The FAO was an early adopter of digitization, but now appears behind the curve in its approach to transparency. It lacks an access to information policy. Negotiations of normative instruments take place behind closed doors and/or under limited public scrutiny. In its monitoring role, the FAO 'names and shames' to encourage States to provide information. Little is known as to the substance of States' reports. As States are acting towards the public interest through the FAO, it is hard to defend opacity in such matters.