Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This paper shows how Seychelles’ debt-for-nature swap tied debt relief to “transparent” ocean metrics (audit-ready data and monitoring protocols) that misread artisanal fishers’ seasonal, species-specific knowledge, narrowing participation and shifting authority amid conservation and climate risks.

Paper long abstract

“How can you monitor our fishery when your inspector shows up at nine, when nobody lands fish—you incorporate that as falling fish stocks into the next round of regulations.” Paraphrasing an artisanal fisherman on Mahé, what sounds like a story of mistimed data collection reveals deeper stakes in politically consequential data and opens onto the polarized politics of ocean knowledge. Drawing on ethnographic research with artisanal fishers and regulatory actors, this paper examines how the world’s first marine debt-for-nature swap in Seychelles—hailed as a breakthrough in ocean finance—intensified struggles over what counts as credible ocean knowledge.

As the necessity of debt restructuring became tied to extensive maritime visualization and “transparent” conservation outcomes, the state and its partners had to generate new forms of legibility: standardized catch statistics, monitoring protocols, and a Marine Spatial Plan, designating 30% of national waters for protection. Yet these audit-ready metrics and “investable projects at scale” produce friction with fishers’ embodied, seasonal, and species-specific knowledge of currents, seasonality, targeting practices, and landing rhythms. As these new modes of narrative control unfold, leaving little room for participation without “proper” methods, fishers’ accounts are often dismissed as unreliable, and consultations risk operating as fait accompli arenas: participation is invited, but only on terms that favor external scientific protocols and finance-facing accountability. The effect is a polarized politics of ocean knowledge in which transparency becomes a performance that secures legitimacy and funding within audit regimes, while redistributing authority away from those most exposed to conservation impacts and climate volatility.