The way out of overfishing: Trust, transparency, and political will

“Fish don’t respect borders, and neither do the economic interests around them,” says PhD candidate Frida Bengtsson, who defends her doctoral thesis on collective action in industrial fisheries, on the 16th of September.

“That makes it easy for responsibility to slip between countries, agencies, and companies,” she says.

Cod: Trust as a foundation for sustainability

In the Barents Sea, the cod fishery is often cited as a success story. Joint management and quotas agreed between Norway, Russia, and third parties like the EU have helped maintain healthy stocks.

But Bengtsson’s research shows that trust built on collective action and repeated interaction between fishers, regulators, and scientists has been as important as the formal numbers when the fishery has faced challenges.

“Rules are necessary, but they work best when backed by cooperation and shared norms," says Bengtsson.

This trust and the health of the fishery are now at risk due to the Russian war in Ukraine.

Tuna: Global fleets, hidden owners

At the other extreme are tuna fisheries, a global, billion-dollar industry where governance struggles to keep pace. Regional management bodies set rules, yet tuna remains vulnerable to illegal and unreported fishing.

A major driver is transshipment at sea, where fishing vessels offload catches to refrigerated cargo ships. Bengtsson’s study of reefer vessel ownership reveals how a small number of opaque ownership networks and countries dominate this activity.

“If we don’t know who owns and controls these ships, we can’t hold the real actors accountable. Knowing who to talk to offers new ways of strengthening the control of this practice.”

Baltic herring: Applying lessons from collective action

The decline of Baltic herring shows that a focus on quotas alone is not enough. Bengtsson’s research suggests the crisis could be addressed by rebuilding trust among actors, while also recognising the challenges of engaging industrial fisheries in collective action based on stewardship aspirations.

“Combining stronger regulation with voluntary efforts that move beyond compliance could help restore both legitimacy and the fishery itself," says Bengtsson.

What Sweden can do

The thesis concludes that rules alone are not enough. Governing fisheries is inherently complex, with multiple actors, scales, and competing interests, and collective action plays an essential role in navigating that complexity. But collective action alone is never sufficient to move toward sustainable fisheries; voluntary initiatives must be integrated into strong regulatory frameworks.

For Sweden, this means:

• Demand transparency about the ownership of all vessels involved in fisheries.
• Supporting stronger quota cuts or area closures to reduce pressure on overfished stocks such as Baltic herring.
• Using tougher policy tools, such as buy-outs of industrial rights or seasonal bans, when science indicates a need.

As Bengtsson concludes: “Sustainable fisheries are not just a biological or technical challenge. They are social and political, depending on how we collaborate, share responsibility, distribute rights, and ultimately how governments are willing to act on the evidence."