Under the shadow: Forced labour among sea fishers in Thailand

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15003851

Highlights

•Forced labour practices in Thailand's fishing industry.
•Employment practices and working condition in Thailand's short-haul industry.
•Importance of brokers and social networks in recruiting migrant workers.
•Migrant fishers from Cambodia and Myanmar are controlled through abusive practices.
•A concerted effort by governments and buyers is needed to eliminate forced labour.

Abstract
Thailand's fishing industry relies almost exclusively on migrant workers to fill its hazardous, low-paying jobs. Recently, the industry has come under increased scrutiny due to the prevalence of forced labour and illegal fishing practices. This paper discusses the findings of a large-scale survey (n=596) undertaken with fishers – Thai, Cambodian and Myanmar – in four coastal provinces in Thailand. The majority of fishers worked on short-haul vessels in the wild-capture sector. Using the indicators developed by the International Labour Organizations Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour, 16.9% (n=101) of respondents identified as being victims of forced labour for human trafficking. The survey results give important insight into the existence of deceptive and coercive recruitment practices, exploitative working conditions, and forced labour in the fishing industry. A concerted approach by governments and buyers is needed to eliminate forced labour practices.

1. Introduction
In June 2015, the Daily Mail reported on how Myint Naig, a Burmese fisherman, had spent 22 years forced to work on a Thai fishing boat in Indonesia, during which time he suffered extreme mental and physical abuse. The story was eerily reminiscent of media coverage of other Burmese and Cambodian fishers, also forced to work on Thai boats catching shrimp, squid, tuna, and other fruits of the sea. On board these vessels, many migrant fishers were subjected to frequent beatings, and who were starved, denied wages and on sold. Some fishers were killed or thrown overboard [14], [26], [34] and [7]. Such abuse is not solely targeted at migrant workers as Thai fishers themselves have also been victims of forced labour abuses [20].

Thailand's seafood industry makes a key contribution to its economic development. Thailand produces in the vicinity of 3.8 million tons of seafood every year; 71% of which is destined for export markets [12]. Over the last four decades, the industry has experienced significant growth and today ranks third after China and Norway in terms of exports of fish and fishery products [13]. However, the majority of exports are aquaculture products or fish products, which are imported for processing and then re-exported. The wild-capture sector is characterized by over-fishing as well as illegal fishing practices, which has resulted in the degradation of fish stocks. Fishing operators are increasingly catching low value or juvenile fish to feed, in part, the demand for the aquaculture sector. Faced with reduced revenues, operators continually seek to reduce operating costs and according to the Environmental Justice Foundation ([11], 6) “the collapse of fishing stocks in Thailand's marine capture fisheries has directly contributed to the widespread use of modern slavery”. The industry relies almost exclusively on irregular migrant workers-especially those from Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar – to fill its hazardous, low-paying jobs. The working conditions many migrant workers experience in Thailand's fishing industry are such that fishers are often referred to as victims of human trafficking for forced labour. Phil Robertson, the Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch's Asia Division, views forced labour as being systemic in the industry, and the relationship between migrant fishers and the Thai boat captains who buy them as “predatory” [14]. In recent months, Thailand's management of its fishing industry has come under increased international scrutiny due to the prevalence of forced labour as well as illegal fishing practices.

While media reports, importantly, capture readers' attention, they are not a substitute for in depth empirical research. Such reports do not unpack the frameworks within which the working conditions and labour exploitation occurs and do not provide sufficient and robust empirical data to inform policies in the fishing industry on how to minimise or eradicate the abuse of fishers. This is the purpose of this empirically-motivated paper. The paper presents the findings of a large-scale survey detailing the employment practices and working conditions in the commercial fishing sector in four coastal provinces in Thailand. The findings are based on a joint research project between the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Asian Research Center for Migration at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand [18].

The paper is set out as follows: the Section 2 discusses the trajectory to forced labour in the fishing industry. This section is followed by an overview of research methods. In total 596 fishers were surveyed, the majority of whom worked on short-haul vessels operating in Thailand's waters. The key findings of the study are then presented in Section 4 where the recruitment of the fishers along with working conditions on board the vessels are discussed. There is evidence that forced labour is occurring particularly in the long-haul sector. Section 5 comprises a discussion and conclusion.

2. Forced labour practices in the fishing industry
Increased global competition within the fishing industry due, in part, to over-fishing and declining fish stocks has resulted in fishing operators reducing operating costs in order to remain competitive. Further, commodity-oriented global value chains (GVCs), such as fishing, are dominated by lead firms, who pressure suppliers to maximise supply and who “can transmit commercial pressures on conditions of price and supply along the length of value chains” ([24], 251). Many fishing operators “consider cost savings on crews from developing countries to be a legitimate lever in achieving competitive rates” ([19], 24). Such pressures can exacerbate conditions for labour. In Crane's [6] view “primary industries that have become uncompetitive because of low market prices … might perceive the necessity of coerced labor brought as close as possible to zero cost to survive”. Fishing companies across the globe are increasingly relying on migrant labour from developing countries, particularly in Asia. Thailand is no exception.

According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2011) forced labour is prevalent in labour-intensive stages of production in industries incorporated into GVCs, including fishing. In recent years there has been an emerging body of research into forced labour practices in the fishing industry (see for example: [8,[17], [27], [29],[30], [31], [32] and [36]). The ILO Convention No. 29 (1930) defines forced labour as “all work or service that is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily” (Article 2(1)) ([16], 5). There are two key components to this definition: (1) menace of penalty; and (2) lack of consent. The ILO recognises that “many victims enter forced labour situations initially out of their own choice, albeit through fraud and deception, only to discover later that they are not free to withdraw their labour” ([16], 6).

2.1. Trajectory to forced labour
Forced labour can take different forms and can occur at different stages within the labour chain: for example at the entry stage, during the labour process, and/or at the exit stage[29] and [3]. A feature of contemporary labour practices is the use of labour brokers at the recruitment stage – this can involve multiple layers of networks including formal and informal or unregistered intermediaries accessing a cheap and ready source of labour in developing countries. According to Verite ([35], 4) the use of “labor brokers brings with it troubling issues of fragmented and opaque social accountability” thereby increasing the risk of workers entering into forced labour chains. In the fishing industry, the employment arrangement is often facilitated by brokers who supply labour to the fishing vessels. The brokers require workers to pay a recruitment fee and many migrant workers enter into debt bondage in order to pay this fee; a situation described by O'Neill [22] as “compulsion by necessity”. They borrow from a variety of sources, including the broker themselves, and agree to pay the debt over time. Robertson [25] highlights “a direct connection between this kind of “travel now, pay later” system and the trafficking of men onto fishing boats.”

 
While there are labour brokers who abide by regulations and acceptable standards and practices, there are also those who are perpetuators of labour abuses. The latter will typically target inexperienced and vulnerable individuals to work on fishing vessels [21]. The labour supply chains are such that fishers can be hired through a cascade system of unscrupulous intermediaries, which “provides space…to extract economic rent from vulnerable workers through coercive practices involving debt bondage and entrapment” ([2], 4). Robertson [25] found that due to the difficulty in recruiting workers willing to work in the fishing industry “many of the brokers involved in recruiting fishermen are also involved in human trafficking”.

Work in the industry can be extremely hazardous. Officers will use abuse and coercion in order to maximise labour productivity. Severe human rights abuses – physical, psychological and sexual – are common in many aspects of the fishing industry [19], [21],[27], [36] and [8]. Crew members can be subjected to substandard living conditions, including the lack of basic necessities such as drinking water, food, clean bedding and hygienic facilities. Long working hours are common, with extreme shifts being reported; and commonly fishers are only permitted short breaks of 3–4 h [27] and [9].

While fishers may voluntarily enter into an employment agreement, they can subsequently find they were deceived and in actuality are in a forced labour situation. Once employed, they can be threatened with a “runaway insurance” being imposed if they leave their employment before the completion of their contract [29] and [32]. Their ability to leave is often “precluded by the continual and overriding threat of destitution” ([24], 247) or through violence or threats of violence which “can be considered a ‘menace of penalty’ under the definition of forced labour, because they instill fear into people to remain at work” ([23], 84). Thus deception, coercion and vulnerability can occur along the labour chain from recruitment through until the exit stage [28] and [29]. Importantly Barrientos et al. [3] contends that it is the “unfreedom at the point of exit” that is critical to understanding the nature of forced labour (see also [24]).

2.2. Forced labour practices in the Thai fishing industry
The most widely reported cases of forced labour practices in the fishing industry globally have occurred in the Thai fishing industry. Such cases have most often been reported in the media (cf [1], [5] and [14]) or in studies undertaken by researchers for inter-governmental organisations (IGOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (cf [4],[8], [10], [15], [17], [25] and [33]). Thailand is a major destination country for migrant workers – both documented and undocumented – of which many migrate under extremely precarious conditions that make them vulnerable to forced labour intermediaries ([4] and [18]). Pearson [23] found that the majority of migrants enter Thailand through the use of informal agents and are thus classed as undocumented migrants. Robertson [25], in an International Organization for Migration (IOM) report, detailed the recruitment, living and working conditions of fishers in the Thai fisheries industry and their trajectory into forced labour. Each of these authors described forced labour practices in the Thai fishing industry that occur on a continuum from recruitment through to rescue.

However, with few exceptions, in-depth academic research on migrant fishers in Thailand is limited. A notable exception—in terms of both depth of ethnographic detail and theoretical framing of the issue—is a paper by Annuska Derks [9] on Cambodian fishers working on Thai boats. Derks documents the experiences of Cambodian migrants working as fishers in Thailand arguing that the portrayal of these individuals as “victims of trafficking” or “victims of forced labour” misses the complexity of migrant worker mobility and employer relations, which are bound by different circumstances at each stage of employment on a fishing boat. Her research illustrates the opposing tensions that lead to the “immobilizaton” of such migrants within a competitive system, given both the costs and shifting mechanisms for official registration of migrant workers in Thailand and the need for an employer to establish control over their movements so as to maintain a productive workforce. Whereas migrants may tend to be transient in an industry characterized by harsh and dangerous working conditions, employers who have invested in them (e.g., via sponsorship for temporary work permissions in Thailand or arranging for protection from police raids) may utilise control of movement, withholding of pay, and confiscation of identity documents as means to ensure a consistent labour force with minimal trouble from authorities. Through this lens, Derks argues for a more nuanced interpretation of labour in the fishing industry, framing the starting point of analysis to that of “bonded labour” rather than making an immediate leap to “human trafficking” or “forced labour”. The next section discusses research methods.

3. Research methods
A questionnaire developed by researchers at the Asian Research Center for Migration at Chulalongkorn University, in collaboration with the ILO's Bangkok Office, was used to interview the fishers. The research was undertaken in consultation with number of stakeholders including the Thai Ministry of Labour, the Department of Fisheries, the National Fisheries Association of Thailand, the Thailand Overseas Fishing Association. The questionnaire was administered to Myanmar, Thai and Cambodian fishers, in four coastal provinces in Thailand: Rayong, Samut Sakhon, Ranong and Songkhla (see Fig. 1). In total 596 fishers were interviewed and completed the survey. The fishers were selected using stratified, accidental sampling according to province and nationality to ensure coverage of the composition of major groups of migrant and Thai fishers in the industry. Rayong is a fishing town near the Cambodian border where Cambodian migrant sea fishers are employed predominately in fisheries. Samut Sakhon, Ranong and Songkhla provinces are host to more migrant fishers from Myanmar as they are situated near the Myanmar border. Workers from both short-haul (n=490) and long-haul (n=106) fishing boats were included in the sample.