Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Assembling tuna traceability in Indonesia

A.A.A. Sita K. Djelantik , Simon R. Bush
⁎

Wageningen University and Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, Netherlands

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Traceability is broadly understood as a technical means of understanding, communicating and steering the
Traceability relations of production and trade in the global food system. Using an assemblage lens, this paper challenges this
Transparency technical understanding by analysing how traceability affects and is affected by the relations that constitute
Assemblage global value chains. Analysing the introduction of the ThisFish traceability system in a small-scale tuna fishery in
Tuna
Indonesia we show how an NGO, Masyarakat dan Perikanan Indonesia (MDPI), de-stabilised existing relations
Indonesia
Governance
and expertise around landing and trading tuna and subsequently re-stabilised these relations in a different as-
semblage through the collection, collation and management of fisheries data. In doing so MDPI worked through
rather than reconfigured the social relations of production and trade in the implementation of traceability,
thereby becoming part of the assemblage the NGO sought to change. The results demonstrate how the im-
plementation of traceability is, in contrast to its technical framing, more accurately understood as a process of
'active embedding' by 'boundary subjects' who re-assemble contingent interactions by enacting multiple roles
simultaneously. Traceability is as such contingent on the performance of these boundary subjects rather than on
market incentives or objective monitoring and control. However, we also conclude that because it also depen-
dent on the negotiated identity and function of these boundary subjects, traceability (and similar market based
forms of governance) risk reinforcing rather than transforming the relations of production and trade they en-
gage.

1. Introduction import requirements, a range of state and private-led traceability sys-

The governance of sustainable seafood, like many other global value
chains, has centred around the proliferation of private tools and ar-
rangements. Two decades of development has seen the rise of third-
party certification, consumer recommendation lists, payment for eco-
system services, responsible business conduct, industry-led ‘improve-
ment projects’, consumer supported fisheries, and traceability
(Sampson et al. 2015; Roheim et al. 2018; Bush and Oosterveer 2019).
The proliferation of these governance arrangements has been in re-
sponse to a range of sustainability challenges, ranging from high levels
of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activity (Agnew et al.
2009; Pramod et al. 2014), fraud and mislabelling of products in the
market (Warner et al. 2013; Helyar et al. 2014), and overfishing in
many (developing world) fisheries (FAO 2018).
Underlying seafood sustainability, and the private governance ar-
rangements developed to address them, are demands for improved
transparency over where, how and by who fish are caught and traded.
These demands have been particularly strong in major importing
markets such as European Union (EU) and the United States (US)
(Willette and Cheng 2018; Lewis and Boyle 2017). Spurred on by
tems have emerged allowing (global) NGOs, states, buyers and con-
sumers to verify the safety, provenance, source and legality of seafood
at ‘arms-length’ (see Auld et al. 2015). Some consumer facing tools
provide even more detailed information on the name and face of fish
harvesters and their fishing method (Bailey et al., 2016a). In many
instances traceability systems are designed to increase ‘trust’ of pro-
ducers in the global South by the market in the global North through
the disclosure of information related to the conditions of production
and trade. These systems are, as such, playing a growing role in shaping
international expectations around what constitutes ‘legitimate’ seafood.
The disclosure of information through traceability systems in-
evitably requires a degree of reductionism and standardisation. Similar
to the other private governance tools, such as certification, those de-
signing traceability systems need to make choices over what informa-
tion, related to which practices and relations of production and trade,
will be disclosed at what level of precision and to who (Mol 2015). In
making these choices, traceability systems abstract local realities into
systems that can be standardised and up-scaled. Similar to certification,
the design of traceability systems are based on a priori assumptions
about practices and social relations that are constantly changing in the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sita.djelantik@gmail.com (A.A.A.S.K. Djelantik), simon.bush@wur.nl (S.R. Bush).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.07.017
Received 19 March 2018; Received in revised form 3 July 2020; Accepted 31 July 2020
0016-7185/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: , Geoforum, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.07.017

A.A.A.S.K. Djelantik and S.R. Bush
local contexts where they have to be implemented (e.g. Bush and
Oosterveer, 2007; Kusumawati et al., 2013; Doddema et al. 2018). The
question is how the level of disclosure these traceability systems de-
mand can match the expectations of (global) NGOs, states, buyers and
consumers, while at the same time adequately reflecting the contexts
and embedded relations in which these systems intervene.
In this paper we examine the introduction of traceability in complex
local settings as a dynamic process of de- and re-stabilising assemblages
of heterogeneous objects, actors and social relations (Vandergeest et al.
2015; Toonen and Bush 2018). An assemblage approach allows us to
examine how global market-based interventions, such as traceability,
are performed locally through a process of ‘active embedding’ by what
we label ‘boundary subjects’ – actors that are able to enact different
positions and take part in different assemblages simultaneously
(Murdoch, 2006; Bear 2012; Köhne, 2014; Blanco et al., 2015). Rather
than focusing on a priori assumptions of how traceability should work,
we focus on how these boundary subjects respond to, shape and co-opt
relations between the subjects, objects, expertise and practices while
traceability is being implemented. In doing so, we assess these trace-
ability interventions against their own goal of changing the practices of
supply chain actors to collect and exchange information on where how
and who catches and trades fish. Consequently we argue that global
supply chain interventions are best understood as dynamic socially
embedded interventions that require ongoing facilitation.
Our analysis is based on a case study of the Improving Fisheries
Information and Traceability for Tuna (IFITT) project led by
Wageningen University and enacted by the Indonesian NGO Masyarakat
dan Perikanan Indonesia (MDPI) – an organisation that positions itself as
an intermediary and traceability service provider between fishers and
fish exporters. The objective of the IIFIT project was to implement the
consumer facing ThisFish (see www.thisfish.info) traceability system to
the Indonesian small-scale tuna supply chain – a sector making up 90%
of vessels targeting tuna but with virtually no information on catches or
fishing activity (Sunoko and Huang 2014). In doing so IFITT was de-
signed to incentivise fishers and traders to be more transparent about
their fishing and trading activities, feed privately generated fishing and
trade data to the Indonesian state and facilitate compliance to trace-
ability requirements in major export markets (Bush et al. 2017). Given
the lack of previous experience in private traceability in Indonesia,
MDPIs role was an experiment in implementation that directly fed
wider international expectations for seafood traceability in the global
South.
The following section outlines our analytical framework for un-
derstanding the implementation of traceability as the de-stabilisation
and re-stabilisation of social assemblages. We then explain how data
was collected before turning to the presentation of multiple cases that
highlight the central role of MDPI as a ‘boundary subject’. This role is
further explored in the discussion and conclusion where we argue for a
new understanding of global governance interventions like traceability
and their intermediaries as socially mediated modes of governance that
are embedded in and, as such, subject to heterogenous identities, re-
lations and practices.
2. Governance as de-stabilising and re-stabilising assemblages
An assemblage is an “ever-changing collective existing of hetero-
geneous elements that gather and disperse” (Bear 2012, p. 23). The
term refers to both a process of formation as well as what is being
formed (Deleuze and Guattari’s, 1988; Bennett, 2005; DeLanda 2006;
Murdoch 2006; Phillips, 2006; Bear 2017). ‘Assemblage’ therefore
challenges assumptions that governance interventions, like traceability,
can be seen as a causal or linear processes involving a discreet and
known set of actors reaching a pre-determined and singular goal (see
Klerkx et al. 2012 for an in depth discussion). Instead studying an in-
tervention like traceability requires understanding the changing asso-
ciations between heterogeneous elements (material and immaterial,
2
Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
human and non-human) both in response to and in constitution of that
intervention (Bear 2012).
We analyse interventions in assemblages as the de-stabilisation and
re-stabilisation of relations between subjects, objects, expertise and
practices (following Vandergeest et al., 2015). As outlined by Sellar
(2009) de-stabilisation “enables the emergence of new properties
through the inclusion of new components and subsequent relations” (p.
71). Any intervention, be it intentional or not, attempts to de-stabilise
existing relations and subsequently re-stabilise them in an new con-
figuration. As an assemblage is being constantly (re)produced, relations
are actively and continuously de-stabilised and re-stabilised in an at-
tempt to reach the goals set by the intervention. But at the same time
the design, objectives and outcomes of the elements making up the
intervention are also affected (cf. Doddema et al. 2018).
We argue that (de- and re-)stabilisation can be expressed in at least
three ways.
First, de- and re-stabilisation can be observed through expressions of
identity among actors (DeLanda, 2006). The more homogenous these
expressions of identity the more stable the assemblage. Conversely, the
more heterogenous or unclear these expressions are the less stable the
assemblage. For instance, actors in the tuna supply chain may identify
with the goals of traceability system, as observed through common
patterns of practices (sayings and doing) related to fishing, landing,
processing and/or data collection (e.g. Doddema et al. 2020). Alter-
natively they may not identify with the system and continue practices
that are aligned but do not identify with traceability, or that are an-
tagonistic to the goals of traceability.
Second, the de- and re-stabilisation of an assemblage is defined by
processes of inclusion and exclusion (Vandergeest et al. 2015). As an
assemblage de-stabilises its boundaries between internal and relations
between its constituent elements become more fluid, allowing for new
elements to be either ‘assembled’ (included) or disassembled (and ex-
cluded). As the relations between these subjects and objects become
more persistent, as expressed through for instance repeated practices
and/or growing trust between actors (Doddema et al. 2020), the as-
semblage becomes re-stabilised. These processes of de- en re-stabilisa-
tion are therefore expressed through the in- and exclusion of actors and
objects over time, or the degree of mobility of actors and objects in
forming and/or maintaining relationships. This includes, for example,
redefining which fish are to be traced, or opening up new (export)
markets requiring new trading partners.
Third, de- and re-stabilisation is also expressed through the chan-
ging spatial boundaries around location of relations and practices (see
Bear 2012; Vandergeest et al. 2015; Toonen and Bush 2018). These
boundaries reflect, for instance, the spatial delimitation of ‘traditional’
fishing grounds based on national regulation or international treaties
(see for e.g. Pauwelussen 2015), as well as the places at which trace-
ability is practiced – on vessels, landing sites, and processing facilities
(Doddema et al. 2018; Doddema et al. 2020). As relations and practices
of any of these activities relocate so too do social boundaries that define
the assemblage, leading also to the inclusion and exclusion of its con-
stituent elements.
Following Sellar (2009) these three expressions offer “a description
of basic processes that take on unique specificities in each singular
emergence at any given scale” through which the whole assemblage is
created and de- or re-stabilised (p. 69). This means that while the
identities of some actors and the exclusion of some objects may be
subject to an intervention like traceability, their de- and re-stabilisation
reflects a change in the assemblage as a whole. It also means that any
given assemblage interacts with other assemblages, and through the
process of de-stabilisation elements can either connect or move in and
out of these other assemblages.
Viewing governance interventions like traceability as an assemblage
open them up to scrutiny of what is “possible at a particular point in
time” rather than imputing them with “negative or positive value”
(Sellar 2009, p. 72). This has consequences for how governance is
A.A.A.S.K. Djelantik and S.R. Bush
defined. Instead of being defined in terms of standardisation and con-
trol, the governance of assemblages can be seen as the performance of
largely unpredictable elements. When steered by a new entrant to the
assemblage, like a traceability implementer, this performance can be
considered a form of ‘boundary work’ – that is, an active attempt to
define and demarcate roles and practices while at the same time co-
ordinating productive cooperation through a generally accepted divi-
sion of labour (Hoppe 2010). We argue that because such boundary
work is deliberate, these negotiations are not only an act of de- and re-
stabilising an assemblage, but also an active attempt to (further) embed
the intervener/implementer into relations between heterogenous ele-
ments.
3. Methodology
Field work was carried out over nine weeks in 2015 in one of the
ports targeted by the IFITT traceability pilot programme on the island
of Lombok in Indonesia. Access to the site and those subjects per-
forming traceability including fishers and traders in Lombok was fa-
cilitated by MDPI. During field work the range of subjects interviewed
expanded to government officials, fishery associations, fishers, a range
of NGOs and US buyers affected by the traceability intervention. The
aim of the semi-structured interviews was to understand the role and
position of these actors within the fishery and with regards to the in-
tervention, as well as their goals and expectations regarding trace-
ability. Questions were also asked about their past and everyday life.
Following Fox and Alldred (2015), these interviews were not solely
used to understand their subjective representations of the world, but to
assess how interviewees were situated in the assemblage as well.
Data was also collected through participatory observation, in-
cluding informal conversations and photographs. Observations of MDPI
field staff enabled an in depth understanding of how they (as subjects)
affected relations with other subjects and objects through expertise and
their material practices. These observations were made at the landing
and trading and processing sites where traceability is performed, as
well as at the head office of MDPI in Bali. Most time was spent at the
enumeration office of MDPI in a fishery town in Lombok, from where
access was acquired to other informants from the fishing community.
Conducting observation helped to identify and understand the fishery
and data collection practices and interactions between subjects and
objects, and to discover how the performance of traceability was si-
tuated in everyday life.
Field notes were synthesised from interviews and observations on a
continual basis, allowing for an iterative process of reflection and ad-
justment of questions and observations in subsequent data collection.
When data was being coded based on the variables (of subjects, objects,
expertise and practices), fragmented pieces of storylines appeared. By
synthesising these story lines the most emergent empirical themes were
reported on. Following Sellar (2009), these themes are regarded as ‘sub-
assemblages’. Each case illustrates different processes of de- and re-
stabilisation in the relations, materials and practices of tuna harvesting
and trade, through which the role of MDPI as a boundary subject is
revealed.
Small scale Indonesian fisheries are diverse, with a range of boat
sizes and gears used throughout the country. In that sense, Lombok
represents a particular tuna fishery, constituting vessels and gears de-
rived from fishers originating from island of Sulawesi. However, the
landing and trade practices in small scale tuna fisheries are more si-
milar across the country (Bailey et al., 2016; Doddema et al. 2018).
From that perspective the insights from Lombok hold relevance for
small scale fisheries more broadly in Indonesia (Ferse et al 2012;
Miñarro et al. 2016), and even in other small scale fisheries where
patron client relations structure fishing and trade (e.g. Bush 2004;
Ruddle 2011; Ferrol Schulte et al. 2014).
3
Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
4. The tuna traceability assemblage
Tuna fisheries in Indonesia are made up of 130,000 vessels ranging
in size from 3 m in length to > 100 m and catch close to 1 million MT of
tuna per year (Sunoko and Huang 2014). Valued at US$760 million
worth of exports, tuna is also an important generator of wealth across
all fleets, making it the single most important seafood category for In-
donesia (Duggan and Kochen 2016). However, the ongoing sustain-
ability of these and other fisheries is questionable given up to 38% of
Indonesian seafood products to the major markets like the US are es-
timated to come from illegal, unreported and/or unreported (IUU)
sources (Pramod et al. 2014).
Information that adequately reports on the activities of small scale
tuna fisheries is particularly scarce. In the absence of information on
these fisheries international regulation on IUU from both the European
and US markets, makes broad assumptions about the illegal and un-
regulated nature of their activity (Halim et al. 2019). As a consequence,
small scale tuna fisheries are disproportionately vulnerable to being
excluded from these international markets, with consequent impacts on
their livelihoods. In addition, the discourse of IUU fishing has created
broader concern over the unsustainability and ‘criminality’ of these
small scale fishers (Khan et al. 2018; Halim et al. 2019).
It is against this background that various traceability interventions
have been introduced to small scale Indonesian fisheries (see Duggan
and Kochen 2016; Bush et al. 2017). The goal of these traceability in-
terventions is in general terms to disclose legal, reported and regulated
fishing to downstream buyers in global tuna value chains (Bailey et al.,
2016), in order to enlarge markets for small-scale fishers thereby im-
proving their livelihoods. The IFITT programme also saw traceability as
a means of generating of information on landings for government to use
in the biological assessment of tuna fisheries, and in doing so, assist
Indonesia to meet its obligations to the Western and Central Pacific
Tuna Commission and Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (see Bush et al.
2017). To that end the IFITT programme linked data on vessel licences,
location of catch, and landings of non-target catch and endangered and
threatened species, with the intention of transmitting this information
to buyers, including consumers, through ThisFish - a consumer facing
traceabilty scheme developed by EcoTrust Canada (see Fig. 1).
MDPI, the implementing partner in the programme, is a registered
Indonesian NGO that was originally created as a spin-off from the
corporate social responsibility programme of ANOVA seafoods. While
an independent entity, the majority of MDPI’s work is in support of
fishery communities to ANOVA to develop the informational capacity
for meeting export requirements, which includes both traceability and
Fair Trade certification (Duggan and Kochen 2016; Bailey et al., 2016).
MDPI implemented the traceability system in tandem with a wider
landings enumeration programme and Fair Trade certification in a
number of fishing communities in Indonesia. MDPI’s locally embedded
long-term engagement is purposefully designed to build relations and
coordinate information collection and transmission between a diverse
set of chain actors. This is in direct contrast to many other (interna-
tional) NGOs that, while also working with commercial partners, tend
to adopt more arms-length approaches to technology interventions that
commonly by- pass instead of engage local actors, practices and social
relations (e.g. Kusumawati et al. 2013). At the same time MDPI dis-
seminates their knowledge on traceability to the international sustain-
able fisheries community by sharing its approach, lessons and successes
at international conferences.
5. De-stabilising relationships in the supply chain
MDPI’s starting point for implementing the ThisFish traceability
system was to directly engage the existing trade relations of ANOVA to
small scale tuna landing sites. In doing so, MDPI actively sought to de-
stabilise existing trade relations by including themselves into the
practices and social relations that structured tuna harvesting, trade and
A.A.A.S.K. Djelantik and S.R. Bush
Flow of fisheries data
Relationship between chain actors
Fig. 1. Tuna traceability assemblage in Lombok, Indonesia.
information exchange (see Doddema et al. 2018). MPDI's strategy as-
sumed that any externally-driven intervention would need the support
of middlemen (and middlewomen; Máñez and Pauwelussen 2016), who
as buyers and creditor-patrons are central in controlling the flow of fish
and information from fishers (see Bailey et al. 2016b; Doddema et al.
2020).
As the programme manager of MDPI explained, the enactment of
traceability was not limited to a technical process of implementing
technology and enumerating tuna landings, but also focused on the
enactment of social relations:
[We] spent about 2 months, 2.5 months in the field of literally standing
in the landing site every day and trying to figure out what was the flow of
fish, how would enumeration work. To build a protocol and figure out
how can we do something without disrupting the work a lot. So I think we
built some very good friendships. There were people who were like “these
people are crazy but ok; we will let them do it”. We sat with [the mid-
dleman and his wife] every day and chat. We just sat there. We spent a
lot of time friendship building. [The supply chain manager] had the
approach from a private company; she needed to ensure that the re-
lationship stayed strong. You know what it means. We weren’t going in as
a normal NGO with the objective of conversation per se. We were going in
from a private company to strengthen the partnership that was already
there.
The experience of the programme manager demonstrates the diffi-
culty MDPI faced in intervening in a ‘stable’ set of existing relations.
MDPI had to open up these existing relations through their persistent
presence and, over time, by inserting themselves into everyday activ-
ities at landings sites ‘without disrupting the work’. MPDI initially ac-
cessed the landing sites through the hierarchical buying relationship
ANOVA had with their supplier middlemen. But the ongoing acceptance
and inclusion of MDPI was only possible by establishing and main-
taining ‘friendship-like’ relationships with these middlemen (also see
Doddema et al. 2018; Doddema et al. 2020). Over time, this strategic
and contingent relationship established by MDPI unfolded into new
kinds of relationships of trust and transparency through the traceability
system.
By engaging with MDPI these middlemen and -women did not ra-
dically alter their role or position in the new traceability assemblage.
Even though they subjected themselves to greater levels of surveillance
4
Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Flow of traceability data attached to tuna product
Relations established and maintained by MDPI
and disclosure through the traceability system, their existing position in
the assemblage was in fact strengthened (see also Doddema et al. 2020).
These middlemen identified MDPI’s expertise on traceable processing
practices, in addition to strengthening access to ANOVA, as a reason to
subject themselves to traceability. They also recognised that the tra-
ceability system would allow them to gain further control over the
fishers from whom they were buying their tuna.
At no point, however, did MDPI have total control over the flow of
fish or information along the value chain as is implied by ‘traceability’.
This was made clear when ANOVA stopped buying tuna and because of
that, the processor discontinued traceability practices in its factory.
This demonstrates that enactment of full-chain traceability is influenced
by a wider set of (business) relations that can at any time de-stabilise
the assemblage. The introduction of traceability by MDPI is as such not
only dependent on relationships with spatially proximate ‘subjects of
concern’, but also on spatially dislocated relations within the wider
fishery assemblage. So while MDPIs relations with spatially proximate
subjects did enable them to continue collecting data and implementing
traceability practices their re-stablisation of a traceability assemblage
was contingent on the relations, as we now describe in further detail.
6. Re-stabilising traceability practices in the fishery assemblage
6.1. Exchanging roles
Re-stabilising the traceability assemblage over time involved the
integration of enumeration practices and objects by MDPI staff into the
daily practices of the local tuna business. These efforts point at the
stabilising factor of routine. The enumerators recognised that the most
effective means of strengthening their relations with the fishers and
middlemen (the subjects of their work) was engaging with but not in-
terrupting the daily landing and processing activities.
A field note entry by Djelantik at the landing site illustrates the
integration of the enumerators:
Today I witnessed the unloading process at the site where tuna is landed
by fishers. Many people are involved. A big lady [the middlewoman] sits
behind an old fashioned scale while young men with boots on efficiently
take turns placing tuna on the line. Next to her another old lady [turns
out to be her mother] and others are observing everything from a row of
A.A.A.S.K. Djelantik and S.R. Bush Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

chairs. Standing next to them the enumerators are watching the whole dependent on MDPI’s continual engagement with the middlemen/-
process. One enumerator holds a clipboard in his hands with all tem- women and their patronage relations with fishers. These relations
plates he needs to fill in. After weighing, the other enumerator measures structure trade and access to fishing grounds, as well as social welfare
the tuna with a measuring stick at high speed. He shouts the weight while for fishing families.
the first enumerator takes notes. This goes so fast it is almost impossible In Lombok such relations are especially strong due to the depen-
to follow. […]. Everything goes quickly, everyone knows what he has to dence of fishers originating from elsewhere in Indonesia on ‘andon’ li-
do. The enumerator borrows the notebook of the middlewomen and co- cences that allow the movement of mobile fishers (nelayan andon) to
pies the weight on his paper. There is not much informal interaction move between districts and provinces (Adhuri et al. 2016). Middlemen
during data collection itself, but everyone seems to know each other. play a fundamental role in arranging andon licences for fishers with the
While waiting for fishers to arrive with the load everyone already mingles local government, as well as providing capital and services (like fuel)
and chat. (Field notes, 16-04-2015). for fishers to go fishing. As seen in other fisheries across Indonesia and
Southeast Asia, middlemen continually use such dependencies to con-
While the practice of weighing tuna already existed, the enumera-
solidate relationships and set contracts with fishers, making it difficult
tors introduced clipboard and measuring practices to the landing site.
for them to move to other buyers or ports (see Bush 2004; Ruddle 2011;
The performance of these new landing and enumeration objects and
Pauwelussen, 2015; Fabinyi 2013; Bailey et al. 2016b), and making
practices were quickly assimilated and persisted with, indicating a de-
fishers less independent value chain actors as often is assumed when
gree of re-stabilisation (as new objects and practices became part of
designing supply chain interventions. The plurality and different (often
everyday practices). The acceptance of these new objects and practices
subtle) ways these relationships are maintained often results in prior-
also allowed for the alignment and exchange of the expertise required
itizing the harmony of long term relationships over forms of transpar-
to perform tuna landings and enumeration. For example, when MDPI’s
ency and efficiency that might empower individual fishers.
enumerator took up the place of the middlewoman behind the weighing
One of MDPI’s strategies to intervene in these relationships was
scale she identified them as her own staff. MDPI reinforced this ex-
through their use of gift exchange. The enumerators and site managers
change of roles by posting a full time traceability manager in the pro-
of MDPI realised that their ongoing presence in the fishery required
cessing plant, who also assisted in daily processing activities, as well as
continual management of their relationship with the middlemen, partly
setting up information processes and instructional posters to illustrate
through the provision of gifts or ‘souvenirs’ (oleh oleh). As the pro-
the processing steps to the employees. His role reflects the establish-
gramme manager remarked, “from early on whenever we went to the
ment of new traceability practices by gaining trust and introducing
field, we would bring oleh oleh to the fishers, even if it wasn’t in the
expertise in existing practices. It is also an expression shared identity
budget”. In doing so MDPI replicated an established practice of gift
between MDPI staff and the traceability subjects that in turn indicates a
giving that strengthens the expectations of reciprocity that underpin
re-stabilisation of traceability practices within the wider fishery as-
patron-client relationships (see Sather 2002; Verhezem 2014;
semblage.
Pauwelussen, 2015). For example, every year the supplier hands out an
The habitualisation of relations and shared practices between MDPI
extravagant gift as a bonus to the captain with the largest landings for
and the middlemen’s landing and processing operations also extended
each types of vessel (Penongkol and Mandar). These gifts, in extreme
to the informal lives of the ‘experts’ and ‘subjects’. The social networks
instances, vary between a fully-paid hajj to Mecca or a new motorbike.
of fishers, government officials (responsible for state enumeration), and
Not only do these gifts strengthen the relationships with the patrons,
employees of the middlemen are highly fluid in landing sites, especially
they also bestow status on the fishers involved. In this same way the
at the local MDPI office which became a site of both professional and
provision of gifts by MDPI, as an actor with a perceived level of ex-
non-professional interaction. Government officials and workers from
pertise, bestows a degree of status on the middlemen and their opera-
the processing plant and suppliers come by the office to chat and gossip,
tions.
but also to exchange information about the weather, fuel queues,
These observations demonstrate how trust and cooperation under-
fishing gear and the success of recent fishing trips and landings. This
lies the performance of traceability. Instead of addressing subjects
informal space facilitates what Pauwelussen (2015) refers to (based on
through technical interventions related to ‘supply chain management’,
observations made in fishing communities in other parts of Indonesia)
‘transparency’ or ‘sustainability’, MDPI performed traceability as a so-
as an “interactive practice of sitting together and talking” that is “what
cial intervention made up of objects, relations and shared practices –
‘doing business’ is all about” (p. 335). Not only do these practices of
many of which did not relate directly to traceability. MDPI’s attempt to
‘chat and gossip’ create stronger social ties and a stronger shared
re-stabilise the fishery assemblage, as such, was based on the habitua-
identity between disparate groups of actors, they also provide a basis
lisation of enumeration and traceability through the enactment of
for information exchange.
practices of loyalty and patronage.
The observations in this section illustrate the role of MDPI in the
This is not to say the technical expertise that MDPI holds was not
processes of de- and re-stabilisation. First, MDPI de-stabilised the as-
influential. MDPI was still viewed as an expert-broker of traceability by
semblage and was granted access to fishery information by carefully
the site employers. This role gave them expert-status in both the eyes of
aligned data collection practices to every day tuna business. Because
the fishers and middlemen, as well as in the eyes of buyers/clients like
these data collection practices occur almost every day, interaction be-
ANOVA. It also meant they were able to work through and therefore
tween subjects (and objects) were quickly habitualised. Second, the
reinforce, rather than reconfigure, the relations between middlemen
informal interactions reinforced these professional interactions, re-
and fishers, and between middlemen and their international buyer,
stabilising a traceability assemblage with every day or mundane rela-
thereby enacting different roles simultaneously.
tions and practices. Third, as the roles and identity of experts and
subjects became ambiguous over time, the assemblage was further re-
6.3. Assembling information and expertise
stabilised. Previously external actors and practices become part of the
‘way of doing business’. This in turn enabled the MDPI enumerators to
An underlying assumption of the IFITT project was that fishers,
maintain access to key actors and objects in the tuna fishery and extract
middlemen and processors (as subjects) would reflexively change their
the information they sought to extract.
practices as they were exposed to new information about tuna stocks
and the practices of fishers and buyers. However, it remains unclear
6.2. Embedding in patrons-clients relationships whether these actors became more aware or interested in traceability
when they were presented with the data the system generated. This
The ongoing stability of the traceability assemblage is also does not mean that the information collected was not useful or of

5
A.A.A.S.K. Djelantik and S.R. Bush
interest to the fishery. As Neitzel et al. (2017) show, fishers saw value in
the use of new technologies like ‘spot tracers’ that track the movements
of their boats, and data that showed the volumes and seasonality of
tuna landings. There is also evidence that fishers valued the ability to
demonstrate regulatory compliance and plan fishing trips to enhance
safety at sea (Doddema et al. 2018). These observations do question,
however, whether the anticipated benefits from greater transparency
are more important than relations of exchange, trust and dependency.
An indicator of weak interest in the fishery-related information
generated by the traceability system is demonstrated by the lack of pro-
active participation of fishers and middlemen in the ‘data management
committees’ established by MDPI. The aim of these platforms is to share
landings and traceability information between local NGOs, government
officials, universities and business actors with the aim of improving
fishery management. MDPI is in fact highly active in enrolling subjects
to these meetings – especially industry who have been reluctant to
participate. As observed during the field work, MDPI’s sustainability
coordinator encourages managers from processing plants and mid-
dlemen to go to these meetings. He succeeds as he is well respected in
the community and “picks up his phone to everyone”. In doing so MDPI
plays an active role in including these actors into data management
discussions.
Once value chain actors participate in data management commit-
tees, unexpected discussions emerge. For instance, fishers and mid-
dlemen alike complained about the presence of purse seiners illegally
taking ‘their’ fish from their FADs (a well-documented dynamic of
conflict and cooperation, see Satria and Adhuri 2010; Pollnac 2007).
They also raised the difficulties they faced in meeting quality demands
from the market. While these discussions are not immediately related to
the data being presented, the practice of gathering and sharing data
provides value chain actors a platform to discuss these wider issues with
government officials and NGOs that they would not otherwise have. In
doing so MDPI de-stabilises old and re-establishing new practices and
relations (see also Doddema et al. 2018; 2020) that include new sub-
jects (government officials and NGOs) in a traceability assemblage.
Finally, MDPI attempts to actively assemble new technologies and
value chain actors in new alliances and practices during data man-
agement committee meetings. Here MDPI exposes subjects like fishers
and middlemen to traceability objects like technology and data under
the expectation that they provide a means of knowing more about
patterns of fishing and trade. However, responses from these subjects
indicate it is not the insights that technology or data provides them that
incentivises their engagement with traceability. Instead these objects
afford subjects new roles and, most importantly, social status as owners
and interpreters of data. In doing so they identify with objects in a way
that further strengthens existing social-cultural relations that align with
the goals, if not the substance, of traceability.
7. Discussion and conclusion
The case presented above illustrates how the adoption of trace-
ability goes beyond the acceptance of surveillance over chain-related
practices by subjects in return for market access or (potential) price
premiums for traceable products (e.g. Bailey et al. 2016c; Bush et al.
2017; Hardt et al. 2017). Instead, we demonstrate that the performance
of externally driven interventions like traceability is best understood as
the de- and re-stabilisation of heterogenous elements (subjects, objects,
expertise and practices) that constitute (traceability) assemblages
through contingent, existing and carefully managed relationships (see
Havice and Iles, 2015 for a similar discussion in relation to certifica-
tion). Furthermore, we show that the performance of global market-
based interventions like traceability systems are dependent on the de-
gree to which ‘boundary subjects’ like MDPI are able to actively embed
themselves in locally contingent social interactions and practices.
We identify four key ways in which boundary subjects, by steering
de-stabilising and re-stabilising elements, actively embed themselves in
6
Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
an assemblage and, in the process, change their own role and identity.
First, de- and re-stabilisation is dependent on the mobility of
boundary subjects when embedding themselves in relationships with
and between spatially dispersed subjects and objects. As they move,
boundary subjects also adapt their identity to different places along the
value chain and at policy related events (e.g. data management com-
mittee meetings). For example, MDPI plays multiple roles from business
partner to patron, from traceability developer to service provider, and
from service provider to policy advisor as it moves between these places
and events. Indeed, following Sellar (2009) it is the maintenance of
these multiple identities that enabled MDPI to remain mobile and ne-
gotiate constantly changing processes of inclusion/exclusion of subjects
and objects, practices and expertise in the ‘continual emergence’ of the
traceability assemblage.
Second, the active embedding of boundary subjects is contingent on
the continuous enactment of trust and cooperation rather than estab-
lishing a shared set of objectives. The enactment of trust and co-
operation is commonly recognised as an important pre-requisite for
enabling diverse actors to come together and establish a common set of
goals and meaning for shared action (e.g. KimDung et al. 2016). Such
assumptions are central to environmental planning and multi-stake-
holder initiatives used in the creation of private rules and standards (see
Fuchs et al. 2011). However, our results demonstrate how the con-
tinuous enactment of trust and cooperation between heterogeneous
actors de-stabilise an assemblage and enable the adoption of externally
driven tools like traceability in the absence of shared objectives be-
tween the actors involved. In the case of IFITT traceability was im-
plemented in spite of ongoing contradictions or ‘frictions’ (Tsing 2011)
between the individual realities of fishers, middlemen and processes
and with minimal awareness of the sustainability goals of MDPI or the
commercial goals of the buyers in export markets. In contrary to Sellar
(2009) it therefore appears possible for an assemblage to re-stabilise
without a shared identity between the subjects involved.
Third, active embedding involves negotiating contradictory and
complex social conditions that can result in re-stabilisation along ex-
isting forms of inclusion and exclusion of subjects and objects. As il-
lustrated in the IFFIT case, engaging these social conditions require
boundary subjects to embed themselves in patronage relations to fa-
cilitate their own technical ambitions (see Bailey et al., 2015; Doddema
et al. 2018). However, this leaves a fine line between maintaining ex-
ploitative relations and reorienting such relations to ‘progressive’ forms
of patronage (see de Wit and Berner 2009). It also poses the challenge,
following Müller (2014), that the more an actor becomes entangled in
the assemblage, the more complicit they become “in reproducing in-
stead of razing it” (p. 37). Paradoxically as boundary subjects negotiate
these tensions they may even re-stabilise relations and elements in a
configuration that may over the longer term contradict their overall
goals, such as value chain transparency and empowerment of fishers.
Fourth, the inclusion of subjects and objects in an assemblage is
conditional on the emergence of new identities. MDPI was able to shape
these new identities by bringing fishers, middlemen, government and
assorted NGOs together through the data management committees.
These committees played an important role in repositioning the various
subjects into new roles around discussions on data that in turn created
new expectations and ultimately identities. Fishers and middlemen
were given a new status in these committees when asked to explain
patterns of seasonal catches and landings seen in the data directly to
regulators and NGOs, which opened up new identities as co-collectors
of data, co-interpreters, and (although nascent) co-managers of the
fishery. Following DeLanda (2006), this demonstrates that the inclusion
of objects of value, like data, and ascribing status and identity on the
basis of that value can break down entrenched social relations and
identities that undermine trust and collaboration and enable new re-
lations and identities to emerge.
The performance of active embedding in assemblages demonstrate
how global governance ‘interventions’ are a composition of relations
A.A.A.S.K. Djelantik and S.R. Bush
between multiple actors and places in complex local settings linked to
global value chains (Köhne 2014; McGregor et al., 2019). Governance
interventions like traceability (or third-party certification, food safety
standards, carbon credit schemes) are not purely technical interven-
tions. They involve the performance of network stability by assembling
diverse subjects and objects and practices (Eden, 2009; Vandergeest
et al. 2015; Havice and Iles, 2015; Toonen and Bush 2018; McGregor
et al., 2019). Seen as such the impact of private governance arrange-
ments is not determined by the implementation of and compliance to
prescriptive and immutable rules and relations (e.g. Naylor, 2017), nor
are they dependent on price premiums or conditional market access
(see for e.g. Bailey et al., 2016; Liu et al. 2018; He 2018). Instead they
require the continual performance of dynamic networked relations
between elements located in separate places and conditions, and de-
pend on the capacity of a boundary subject to move between (and in
doing so assemble) vastly different social realities.
Through the performance of active embedding, however, our results
also demonstrate how boundary subjects like MDPI are subject to
change too. This demonstrates that neither these boundary subjects, nor
the systems and requirements set out by the traceability system, are as
such ‘immutable mobiles’ – unchanging as they move across the globe
(Latour 1986). Just as the performance of heterogeneous relations and
practices that make up traceability assemblages are constantly chan-
ging, so too is the role, identity or goals of those boundary subjects
performing these assemblages of heterogeneous relations and practices.
We argue that reimaging traceability as a dynamic assemblage holds
four implications for understanding the potential and limitations of
market-based forms of sustainability governance like traceability.
First, the design of these interventions can no longer assume
market-based incentives, like transparency and enhanced bargaining
power, are enough to drive change. Instead, in the everyday perfor-
mance of fishery (or traceability) assemblages ‘incentives’ are a com-
plex mix of status, identity and social dependency. Boundary subjects,
such as value chain intermediaries and brokers (e.g. Ramirez et al.
2018), are then essential to shaping these incentives and, as such,
giving interventions like traceability any chance at success.
Second, the credibility of market-based governance arrangements
cannot be based on objective measurement and systems of control alone
(also see Cook et al. 2016). The legitimacy of these governance ar-
rangements is contingent on the performance of boundary subjects to
negotiate interventions that align with, rather than fundamentally
change, existing identities, mobilities and processes of inclusion/ex-
clusion in specific contexts. These arrangements and their inter-
mediaries should be considered as socially mediated modes of gov-
ernance that are embedded in and, as such, subject to local identities,
relations and mobilities.
Third, the negotiated identity and function of boundary subjects
means that market based forms of governance are unlikely to be
transformative. As others have observed (e.g. Dallas et al. 2019), the
changes these boundary subjects engender are therefore likely to re-
inforce rather than undermine existing power relations that structure
trade and, relatedly, the social relations that structure resource access
and the distribution of wealth. This doesn’t mean, however, that the
specific goals of transparency, traceability, fair trade or sustainable
production practices cannot be implemented. It instead indicates that in
the process of implementation they face any number of trade-offs be-
tween their stated (or unstated) social, economic and environmental
goals.
Finally, value chains cannot be viewed as static entities in which
relationships are defined by selling and buying alone. Any change re-
quires engaging the underlying power relations and social/cultural/
object-subject affections that determine the ways and degrees to which
actors and relationships are open to change. Furthermore, those inter-
vening are themselves not immune to change when embedding them-
selves in these value chains. This highlights the need for constant re-
flexivity on how relations and roles change through intervening and
7
Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
what implications this change as for achieving sustainability goals.
Embracing this understanding can open up new ways of fostering
normative goals like sustainability, transparency and equity at the
global-local interface.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
A.A.A. Sita K. Djelantik: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Simon R. Bush: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing,
Supervision.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Adessium Foundation funded
project Improving Fisheries Information and Traceability for Tuna. The
authors thank Yayasan Masyarakat dan Perikanan Indonesia (MDPI) for
facilitating field research in Indonesia.
References
Adhuri, D.S., Rachmawati, L., Sofyanto, H., Hamilton-Hart, N., 2016. Green market for
small people: Markets and opportunities for upgrading in small-scale fisheries in
Indonesia. Marine Policy 63, 198–205.
Agnew, D.J., Pearce, J., Pramod, G., Peatman, T., Watson, R., Beddington, J.R., Pitcher,
T.J., 2009. Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PloSOne 4 (2), e4570.
Auld, G., Renckens, S., Cashore, B., 2015. Transnational private governance between the
logics of empowerment and control. Reg. Gov. 9 (2), 108–124.
Bailey, M., Bush, S.R., Miller, A., Kochen, M., 2016a. The role of traceability in trans-
forming seafood governance in the global South. Curr. Opinion Environ. Sustain. 18,
25–32.
Bailey, M., Bush, S., Oosterveer, P., Larastiti, L., 2016b. Fishers, Fair Trade, and finding
middle ground. Fish. Res. 182, 59–68.
Bailey, M., Miller, A.M., Bush, S.R., van Zwieten, P.A., Wiryawan, B., et al., 2015. Closing
the Incentive Gap: The Role of Public and Private Actors in Governing Indonesia’s
Tuna Fisheries. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 1–20.
Bailey, M., Miller, A.M., Bush, S.R., van Zwieten, P.A., Wiryawan, B., 2016c. Closing the
incentive gap: the role of public and private actors in governing Indonesia's tuna
fisheries. J. Environ. Plann. Policy Manage. 18 (2), 141–160.
Bear, C., 2012. Assembling the sea: materiality, movement and regulatory practices in the
Cardigan Bay scallop fishery. Cultural Geogr. 20 (1), 21–41.
Bear, C., 2017. Assembling ocean life: More-than-human entanglements in the Blue
Economy. Dialogues Human Geogr. 7, 27–31.
Bennett, J., 2005. The agency of assemblages and the North American blackout. Public
Culture 17 (3), 445.
Blanco, G., Arce, A., Fisher, E., 2015. Becoming a region, becoming global, becoming
imperceptible: Territorialising salmon in Chilean Patagonia. J. Rural Stud. 42,
179–190.
Bush, S.R., 2004. Scales and sales: changing social and spatial fish trading networks in the
Siiphandone fishery, Lao PDR. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 25 (1), 32–50.
Bush, S.R., Oosterveer, P., 2007. The missing link: intersecting governance and trade in
the space of place and the space of flows. Soc. Ruralis 47 (4), 384–399.
Bush, S.R., Oosterveer, P., 2019. Governing Sustainable Seafood. Routledge, London.
Bush, S.R., Bailey, M., van Zwieten, P., Kochen, M., Wiryawan, B., Doddema, A.,
Mangunsong, S.C., 2017. Private provision of public information in tuna fisheries.
Marine Policy 77, 130–135.
Cook, W., van Bommel, S., Turnhout, E., 2016. Inside environmental auditing: effec-
tiveness, objectivity, and transparency. Curr. Opinion Environ. Sustain. 18, 33–39.
Dallas, M.P., Ponte, S., Sturgeon, T.J., 2019. Power in global value chains. Rev. Int. Polit.
Econ. 26 (4), 666–694.
De Wit, J., Berner, E., 2009. Progressive patronage? Municipalities, NGOs, CBOs and the
limits to slum dwellers’ empowerment. Dev. Change 40 (5), 927–947.
DeLanda, M., 2006. A new philosophy of society: Assemblage Theory and social com-
plexity. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Deleuze, G., Guattari, F., 1988. A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia.
Athlone Press, London.
Doddema, M., Spaargaren, G., Wiryawan, B., Bush, S.R., 2018. Fisher responses to private
monitoring interventions in an Indonesian tuna handline fishery. Fish. Res. 208,
49–57.
Doddema, M., Spaargaren, G., Wiryawan, B., Bush, S.R., 2020. Fisher and Trader
Responses to Traceability Interventions in Indonesia. Soc. Nat. Resources. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1739358.
Duggan, D.E., Kochen, M., 2016. Small in scale but big in potential: Opportunities and
challenges for fisheries certification of Indonesian small-scale tuna fisheries. Marine
Policy 67, 30–39.
Eden, S., 2009. The work of environmental governance networks: traceability, credibility
and certification by the Forest Stewardship Council. Geoforum 40 (3), 383–394.
Fabinyi, M., 2013. Social relations and commodity chains: the live reef fish for food trade.
Anthropol. Forum 23 (1), 36–57.
A.A.A.S.K. Djelantik and S.R. Bush
FAO, 2018. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018. Contributing to food
security and nutrition for all. Rome.
Ferse, S.C., Knittweis, L., Krause, G., Maddusila, A., Glaser, M., 2012. Livelihoods of or-
namental coral fishermen in South Sulawesi/Indonesia: implications for manage-
ment. Coast. Manage. 40 (5), 525–555.
Ferrol Schulte, D., Ferse, S.C., Glaser, M., 2014. Patron–client relationships, livelihoods
and natural resource management in tropical coastal communities. Ocean Coast.
Manag. 100, 63–73.
Fox, N.J., Alldred, P., 2015. New materialist social inquiry: designs, methods and the
research-assemblage. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 18 (4), 399–414.
Fuchs, D., Kalfgianni, A., Havinga, T., 2011. Actors in private food governance: the le-
gitimacy of retail standards and multistakeholder initiatives with civil society par-
ticipation. Agric. Hum. Values 28 (3), 353–367.
Halim, A., Wiryawan, B., Loneragan, N.R., Hordyk, A., Fedi, A., Sondita, A., White, A.T.,
Koeshendrajana, S., Ruchimat, T., Pomeroy, R.S., Yuni, C., 2019. Developing a
functional definition of small-scale fisheries in support of marine capture fisheries
management in Indonesia. Marine Policy 100, 238–248.
Hardt, M.J., Flett, K., Howell, C.J., 2017. Current Barriers to Large-scale Interoperability
of Traceability Technology in the Seafood Sector. J. Food Sci. 82 (S1), A3–A12.
Havice, E., Iles, A., 2015. Shaping the aquaculture sustainability assemblage: Revealing
the rule-making behind the rules. Geoforum 58, 27–37.
He, J., 2018. From country-of-origin labelling (COOL) to seafood import monitoring
program (SIMP): How far can seafood traceability rules go? Marine Policy 96,
163–174.
Helyar, S.J., Lloyd, H.A.D., de Bruyn, M., Leake, J., Bennett, N., Carvalho, G.R., 2014.
Fish product mislabelling: failings of traceability in the production chain and im-
plications for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. PloSOne 9 (6),
e98691.
Hoppe, R., 2010. From “knowledge use” towards “boundary work”: Sketch of an emer-
ging new agenda for inquiry into science-policy interaction. In: in't Veld R. (Eds.),
Knowledge Democracy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 169-186.
Khan, A.M., Gray, T.S., Mill, A.C., Polunin, N.V., 2018. Impact of a fishing moratorium on
a tuna pole-and-line fishery in eastern Indonesia. Marine Policy 94, 143–149.
KimDung, N., Bush, S.R., Mol, A.P., 2016. The Vietnamese state and administrative co-
management of nature reserves. Sustainability 8 (3), 292.
Klerkx, L., Van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agri-
cultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. In: Darnhofer, I., Gibbon,
D., Dedieu, B., Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: The new dynamic.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 457-483.
Köhne, M., 2014. Multi-stakeholder initiative governance as assemblage: Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil as a political resource in land conflicts related to oil palm
plantations. Agric. Hum. Values 31 (3), 469–480.
Kusumawati, R., Bush, S.R., Visser, L.E., 2013. Can patrons be bypassed? Frictions be-
tween local and global regulatory networks over shrimp aquaculture in East
Kalimantan. Soc. Nat. Resources 26 (8), 898–911.
Latour, B., 1986. Visualization and cognition. Knowledge Soc. 6 (6), 1–40.
Lewis, S.G., Boyle, M., 2017. The expanding role of traceability in seafood: tools and key
initiatives. J. Food Sci. 82 (S1), A13–A21.
Liu, C., Li, J., Steele, W., Fang, X., 2018. A study on Chinese consumer preferences for
food traceability information using best-worst scaling. PLoS ONE 13 (11), e0206793.
Máñez, K.S., Pauwelussen, A., 2016. Fish is women’s business too: Looking at marine
resource use through a gender lens. In: Schwerdtner Máñez, K., Poulsen, B. (Eds.),
Perspectives on Oceans Past. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 193-211.
McGregor, Andrew, Challies, E., Thomas, A., Astuti, R., Howson, P., Afiff, S., Kindon, S.,
Bond, S., 2019. Sociocarbon cycles: Assembling and governing forest carbon in
Indonesia. Geoforum 99, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.12.003.
Miñarro, S., Forero, G.N., Reuter, H., van Putten, I.E., 2016. The role of patron-client
Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
relations on the fishing behaviour of artisanal fishermen in the Spermonde
Archipelago (Indonesia). Marine policy 69, 73–83.
Mol, A.P., 2015. Transparency and value chain sustainability. J. Cleaner Prod. 107,
154–161.
Müller, M., 2014. Assemblages and Actor-networks: Rethinking Socio-Material Power,
Politics and Space. Geogr. Compass 9 (1), 27–41.
Murdoch, J., 2006. Post-structural Geography: A Relational Guide to space. Sage pub-
lications, London.
Naylor, L., 2017. Auditing the subjects of fair trade: Coffee, development, and surveil-
lance in highland Chiapas. Environ. Plann. D: Soc. Space 35 (5), 816–835.
Neitzel, S.M., van Zwieten, P.A., Hendriksen, A., Duggan, D., Bush, S.R., 2017. Returning
information back to fishers: Graphical and numerical literacy of small-scale
Indonesian tuna fishers. Fish. Res. 196, 96–105.
Pauwelussen, A.P., 2015. The moves of a Bajau middlewoman: understanding the dis-
parity between trade networks and marine conservation. Anthropol. Forum 25 (4),
329–349.
Phillips, J., 2006. Agencement/assemblage. Theory Cult. Soc. 23 (2/3), 108.
Pollnac, R., 2007. Cooperation and conflict between large-and small-scale fisheries: a
Southeast Asian example. In: Taylor, W.W., Schechter, M.G., Wolfson, L.G. (Eds.),
Globalisation: effects on fisheries resources. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 229-243.
Pramod, G., Nakamura, K., Pitcher, T.J., Delagran, L., 2014. Estimates of illegal and
unreported fish in seafood imports to the USA. Marine Policy 48, 102–113.
Ramirez, M., Clarke, I., Klerkx, L., 2018. Analysing intermediary organisations and their
influence on upgrading in emerging agricultural clusters. Environ. Plann. A: Econ.
Space 50 (6), 1314–1335.
Roheim, C.A., Bush, S.R., Asche, F., Sanchirico, J.N., Uchida, H., 2018. Evolution and
future of the sustainable seafood market. Nat. Sustain. 1, 392–398.
Ruddle, K., 2011. ‘Informal’ credit systems in fishing communities: Issues and examples
from Vietnam. Human Org. 70 (3), 224–232.
Sampson, G.S., Sanchirico, J.N., Roheim, C.A., Bush, S.R., Taylor, J.E., Allison, E.H.,
Anderson, J.L., Ban, N.C., Fujita, R., Jupiter, S., Wilson, J.R., 2015. Secure sustain-
able seafood from developing countries. Science 348 (6234), 504–506.
Sather, C., 2002. Commodity trade, gift exchange, and the history of maritime nomadism
in Southeastern Sabah. Nomadic Peoples 6 (1), 20–44.
Satria, A., Adhuri, D.S., 2010. Pre-existing fisheries management systems in Indonesia,
focusing on Lombok and Maluku. In: Ruddle, In K., Satria, A. (Eds.), Managing
Coastal and Inland Waters. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 31–55.
Sellar, B., 2009. Assemblage theory, occupational science, and the complexity of human
agency. J. Occup. Sci. 16 (2), 67–74.
Sunoko, R., Huang, H.W., 2014. Indonesia tuna fisheries development and future strategy.
Marine Policy 43, 174–183.
Toonen, H., Bush, S.R., 2018. The digital frontiers of fisheries governance: fish attraction
devices, drones and satellites. J. Environ. Plann. Policy Manage. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1523908X.2018.1461084.
Tsing, A.L., 2011. Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton University
Press, Princeton.
Vandergeest, P., Ponte, S., Bush, S., 2015. Assembling sustainable territories: space,
subjects, objects, and expertise in seafood certification. Environ. Plann. A 47 (9),
1907–1925.
Verhezem, P., 2014. From a Culture of Gifts to a Culture of Exchange (of gifts): An
Indonesian Perspective on Bribery. Antropologi Indonesia 72, 101–115.
Warner, K., Timme, W., Lowell, B., Hirshfield, M., 2013. Oceana study reveals seafood
fraud nationwide. Oceana, Washington D.C..
Willette, D.A., Cheng, S.H., 2018. Delivering on seafood traceability under the new US
import monitoring program. Ambio 47 (1), 25–30.