Speaker 1: Hello everyone, and thank you for joining us again on
the Seafood Matters podcast. You can help me by pressing
subscribe and share it with family and friends. In this episode,
I'm delighted to welcome David Pareno from a Sustainable Fisheries
Partnership and there way known as SFP, currently working as
a NEE you market specialist. David, Welcome the Seafood Matters.
Speaker 2: Thanks Jim, thanks for inviting me and said you to
be here.
Speaker 1: Thank you looking forward to or chat. Before we get going,
please tell us about your career and the past that
brought you to the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership and your role
there and where you work from now.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I'm a biologist and I've been working in
marine conservation for and fisheries for over a decade in
different places, different regions, Central America, Madagascar and then lately
in Europe. I was with the Marine Stewership Council in
the Mediterranean and now at the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. I'm
an EU Partnership Engagement specialist within the market STEAM and
based in Madrid and spin and basically my work is
with retailers, suppliers and geos and other stakeholders across the
EU to promote sustainable seafood practices and also to drive
market transformation across the region.
Speaker 1: So you've pretty much done that all your working life
so far.
Speaker 2: Yeah, correct. Correct.
Speaker 1: If I could ask, as a EU market still a
global leader and promote seafood sustainability or the real lost
this edge.
Speaker 2: That's a good question. I think the EU has been
a global leader. I think the illegal fishing policy and
you know, import control and sustainability directives in generals have
raised the bar worldwide. But I have the feeling that
today the picture is a bit mix. EU buyers have
influence improvements, and we have examples in West Africa, where
you know, access to EU markets push governments to strengthen
monitoring of the two officeries, and also in Peru where
SFP is also very active, where the EU demanded, you know,
to help formalize artisanal vessels. And if we consider data,
for example, I think there's some positive things to mention too.
If we take the last FAO report that was published
during the United Nations Ocean Conference in this this year,
there are some promising results there. Among the ten marine
species with the highest landings in the in the EU,
and we have species like anchovy, Alaska skip jack, tuna,
and Atlantic herring. About sixty percent of these stocks are
fished sustainably according to FAO, and then if we take
a look at production volume, about eighty six percent of
EU landings are supposed to come from from biological sustainable stocks,
So I think there are some positives there. Tuna is
especially positive with eighty seven percent of populations exploited sustainably
and ninety nine percent of landings coming from sustainable sources.
So I think that's a real step forward.
Speaker 1: And how much actual improvement these are been driven by
EU buying power versus optical optics management.
Speaker 2: So, like I said, there are some positive things to mention,
and I guess there's also some challenges or negative negative
things too because I think, you know, we're responsibility lies
when sustainability goals conflict with commercial reality. Is I'm following
very closely as Peace followed very closely the latest EU
Omnibus package. For those who are listening, this is a
reform that was aim at cutting you know, red tape
across you sustainability rules, and we think that this package
risk to undermine that leadership that was mentioning before. With
the way it looks now, to be honest, it seems
like it would delay sustainability reporting EXEPT most mid size
companies and also limit due diligence to only direct suppliers.
So this means that serious risks like legal fishing and
you know also labor abuses across the supply chain could
be ignored. Even the European Central Bank has worn that,
you know, weakening transparency makes it harder to us climate
and financial risks. So yes, i'd say that you know,
do you is trying to set the gold standard, but
you know, whether it keeps it depends on you know,
whether it pushes ahead with accountability or just waters it
down for sure term convenience.
Speaker 1: Basically, I think there are pretty much renowned for being
bold in Red Tip as you mentioned Red Tip.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, And I have the feeling that it's, uh,
there's you know, we are times to at the moment,
and I'd like to take advantage of these opportunities because
there's there's also a broader political angle to all this,
the feeling because now sustainability seems to be somehow tight
to the political climate worldwide, and I think that also
creates some ripper effect and I don't know how we
arrived at this situation, but here we are. It seems like,
you know, sustainability conveniments will will end up looking soon
like some sort of parties and issue instead of of
common sense. And I think in Europe we're not immune
to that risk, you know, So when sustainability becomes politicized
and and seen as a done own business, I think
there's a real danger for that short term politics under
mind that you know, long term environmental goals, and that
we even lose sight of reality.
Speaker 1: Basically, yes, and of course sustainability the word is very
important and means a lot, but it can be pretty
much abused as well.
Speaker 2: Exactly exactly, and that's why the Omnibus debate that I
was mentioning before, it's so important because initially the bar
was quite high, and it's been lowered down progressively. So
I think, you know, weakning reporting and utiligions might sound
like a technical adjustment, but I think it really reflects
political choices about how seriously we are taking sustainability in
the EU when it conflicts with commercial or electoral pressures.
Speaker 1: Basically, are we seeing any examples where you pressure has
directly resulted in better fashionist management.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mentioned before West Africa and Peru. I think,
you know, in West Africa, this region is important for
the U for EUC food imports, especially for tuna that
are caught by industrial fleets, and I'm thinking about countries
like Ghana or Codvoi and Senegal, so access to EU
markets that are required, you know, that are basically required
to align with the UU fishing regulations and also improve
improved flag state and poor state control. So that's that's
a positive thing. In terms of concrete changes, maybe I
would mention the use of v MS for tuna personers
that has been strengthened, not that it was not done before,
but I think this has helped you to strengthen these
server coverage and and VMS systems into personers, title licensing
and reporting standards to meet also you catch certification requirements
and in general cooperation. I think this has an impact, uh,
you know, has pushed governments and industry to professionalize a
bit basically oversight and improve transparency through through enforcement capacity
and that that varies the country by country of course,
that depends on the country. And then in Peru, just
mentioning Peru briefly, where SFP is also very very active.
In that case, it is not to night, it's it's
and to be you know, talking about you know, produce
the world's largest and to be producer. And it has
also a huge artisanal fleit targeting to Namahi and all
the species for expert But I think in this case
the impact UH you know, has has been important and
has increased three stability and accountability in a segment that
was largely largely informal so far. Not that there are
not things that still need to be improved UH and
and changed through through corperation, but some examples that show
a bit of impact through through market impact, impact through market.
Speaker 1: Suportia responsibility LI when sustainability goals conflict to commercial reality.
Speaker 2: So I think this takes me back to the Omnibus.
I'm mentioning the Omnibus package a lot, because, like I said,
it's a reform that is supposed to be cutting this
red tape that you were mentioning, Team Jim. Sorry, but
in practice, with the way it looks now, we think
it could delay all these sustainability reporting. There's some important
deadlines by the end of this year and also in
twenty twenty six, so we will see what happens. I think,
do you show the world what's possible in general? You know,
it's still the largest market in the world as a region,
as a country is the US. But if this omnibus
package rolls back, it is losing this edge that you
were mentioning.
Speaker 1: Do you see a future for market derive and sustainability
or does it even exist?
Speaker 2: No? Yeah, yeah, I think it does. Like I said,
the EU is the largest UH seafood food market in
in the world. If do we consider it as a
as a region UH as as a country like I said,
this is the US. Will see what happened with that
with the new tariffs, and so I think that's that's
a power that it's within the you know, the the
EU if you want to basically, that's the message I
guess you're sending. When you're the largest market, if you
want to sell here, then you have to meet some
some standards, and I think that couple with strong partnerships
and capacity building. I think the you can make sustainability
the norm and not the the exception. And I think
in general market access is still the most powerful level, right.
I think it's important and people know it.
Speaker 1: What do you think is when it comes to a
big market driven. I feel quite strongly here about how
the market. Okay, we're not talking only E you here
because we're talking about UK. It's not in the EU,
but same principles. But we're finding the market is looking
for well being driven for bigger fish. Let's say bigger
fish make a bigger price and smaller fish just get
cheaper and cheaper to the point now and probably past
it where smaller fish are not viable for fishermen to catch. Now,
that's not only affecting fishermen, it's affecting it's I feel strongly, David,
that the market has to have our responsibility. I feel
we need joined up thinking. I need. I think we
need to get Okay, we have the authorities with enforcement,
we have catchers, the fishers, but we have to get
the market in as well, because we've reached this stage
where fish of certain a certain size. Now I'll give
you an example here, David, and this is myself. I
was in Scrabster a boat landing. Good friend of mine
was landing on the fish market. He's this to me,
help yourself to some fish jam. Go help yourself so
I says, okay, okay, thank you very much, and I
put six haddic in a bag. He says to me,
don't take that stuff. He says, a far better fish
than that on the market. Here here, and he was
just pointing to me where to go. I says, this
is fine by me. I'll enjoy this. And it was fresh,
and it was you could see it was good quality fish.
Now I got home, I was fileting the fish. I
was looking at it, and I'm thinking to myself, now,
this is interesting because going back to the way back
the seventies, early eighties, and maybe into the nineties as well,
had some retail outlets and as you could imagine, the
retail market that was the prime that was the best
price fish that you were getting. You had the fish
and chip trade and expert no, they would pay better money.
But the what we called the retail trades or slab trade,
where you the fishmongers, that was prime quality they wanted
and they would pay good price. Now, in it's not
in your pounds and ounces that we used to deal
with before we converted to kilograms, we were four ounce filet.
Now four ounce filet was a prime size for us
and that would give the housewife for the family four
filets to feeder family, and that would be at a
reasonable price for the house wave. So when I had
filleted them and I was finished, I thought, I'm interested here.
I took my kitchen scales weighed them. The fish were
from four and a half to five even a half ounce,
so above them what I would say would be the
lowest smallest we would go for. And this is for
prime market. So, and the fish were above the legal
landing size. Now what's important. Thirty centimeters for that species
is a legal minimum legal landing size, and this fish
were measured in between thirty six and thirty eight centimeters,
so they're quite considerably above the legal market in size. David,
do you know where I got that fish from? When
a fisherman asked me to go somewhere to go and
get them elsewhere? That was in the boxes they had
for bait for the lobster and crab fishermen. Wow, because
it couldn't sell them on the market, no buyers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I think this is a critical critical point
that you mentioned in Jim, And there's also a contradiction,
Like you said, straight down, you know the market is
like heavily rewarding bigger fish, and prices for large species
or larger individuals are going up. And at the same
time you see that the prices for smallest fish, even
when they are, like you say, above the legal minimum
landing sites well above that minimum size, have been dropping.
So I think this creates a perverse incentives because fishers
struggle to land those smaller fish because they can cover
the costs. And I think what we need here is
more join up thinking between fishers, markets and policy makers,
because if the market took some responsibility and you know,
developed outlets for these small fish, it would support fishers
economically and reduced ways. So I think it's about changing
them the demand as much as supply, and that's a
work that market needs to drive. If we educate consumers,
and that's an important part also in my opinion, to
educate consumers and also expand markets for underutilized species and sizes,
I think we can relieve that pressure on stocks of
larger fisials that's a positive thing, and also ensure that
fishers are not penalized for landing perfectly legal and sustainable catches. Basically,
and I think here that I think I will go
back in its question to the EU of Nibus debate.
I think this also matters here, so because if we're
weakening transparency, then we make it harder to track how
pricing dynamics can affect that sustainability, and I think stronger
reporting could actually help to design a smarter market incentives.
Speaker 1: Let's say we find as well that by you know,
sometimes we get as a means of conserving stocks, the
thought it is all increase the merser size, so that
is constantly making the first beggar. When I was a
child and fashion with my father, the minimum the minimum
mesh size was seventy seventy millimeters. I think it's about
one hundred and twenty now, so it's not just gradually
gone up a little bit. But the other thing that
we're finding, and I've spoken to scientists about this, and
I've actually sent them some samples so that you could
age them. Now, we find that, yes, when you think
of it, increasing the mesh size is good for conservation,
but is it because what the find what we find
now is because they've been doing that for so long,
it's believed that the sea is absolutely full of small fish,
and it is making more fish or competing for the
available food, and we're finding we're not getting the growth
in the fish the way we should. And I've talked
a lot and sent the samples to a fishery scientists
in Iceland. Now, so a lot of the fish I
was sending to David, he says they were suffering from
malnutrition and starvation. And also on the age tests, he
came up with things like I would send them a
fish and I would give him that although I didn't
send him the whole fish. I would send them. He
wanted scale samples because he could tell the age from
the scales. And I was sending them fish and there
was one in particular was between thirty six and thirty
eight centimeters thirty six thirty centimeters in length, and it
was four hundred grams in weight. And this scientist was
telling me, if that fish is in Iceland at that age,
he would have been over two kilos, and it was
four hundred grams in Scotland. And there was another one
that give him the weight for I did it from
boards fishing different areas, so rather than just from one
area and a system. Right, John is it's just six
hundred and fifty grams and fifty centimeters. It looked better
and healthier, and he took the age and he said
that the fish was eight years old. That's another example
of that was in Iceland, it would have been that
way that three years old.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I guess, I guess it's a it's a
balance right between. Yeah, it's delicate because it's a balance
between gear selectivity to reduce by cats and also, you know,
depending on the species in the area where you're fishing better,
that also leads to these kind of risks that you've
mentioned in them. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just feel what you're saying there joined up
thinking and just get the market on board, the city
and the look no, no, it's not a problem for
the fish or the authority is you're responsible as well.
You need to come on board.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, absolutely, And I think it's also important to
educate consumers. Sometimes you find very good fish, quality, high
quality fish that is basically not consumed in one country
because it's not they're not just you know, they're not
used to that kind of fish, and so there's no
market to that, to that fish, and they're struggling to
sell other fish and to find low prices for those
you know, for other fish, but they have good opportunities
even within the country so that they don't need to
import from long distances and you know, from other countries.
So that's that's also an important one. And I think
educating consumers that's also responsibility of the market, and this
is something the market can do.
Speaker 1: Many e retailers rely on ms C and the other
other certifications. Is that driven change or create in a
full sense of security?
Speaker 2: Good question. So I think certifications, you know, are a
good starting point. I myself work for the MSc before SFP,
and so now they set the beastline and also give
consumers some assurance. And I making here a difference between
GSSI and non GSSI certification. That's important. And I guess
they can also create and that's the risk a full
sense of security. So you get the label and you say, okay,
everything is fine and the job is done. In my opinion,
some schemes may fail or are better than others to demonstrate,
for example, social responsibility. That's an important point because if
you cannot show that there are no human rights abuses
across the supply chain, then you know it isn't true sustainability.
In my opinion, so I don't know. In at SFP,
what we do is takeing a risk based approach and
that's what we do. So we help companies identify the risks,
mitigate them, and then act when problems appear. We are
not social comp lines experts, biologists and a social compliant expert,
but we partner with organizations in the EU. In Europe,
we have a partnership with Business and Human Rights and
these guys help us, you know, they help us to
with our partners basically to strengthen this decidles austainably.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, our certifications like MSc becoming a box ticking
exercise or are they still relevant?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think they're still relevant. That I don't in
my opinion. The good news is that many retailers are
and companies that are going beyond box sticking and this
is something that we are seeing more and more often
than you know. They're demanding verifiable trees ability and also
requiring their suppliers to join credible improvement products, and you know,
we help them in this. In this journey, we have
a platform called Ocean Disclosure Project. People can check it
out on the internet. Is free and public. Ocean Disclosure
Project dot org and they will be able to see
the companies that work with US and that disclose their
sourcing sourcing. They make it basic public, so it's a
transparency tool. I think that instead of you know, being
having getting a certification is like you know, black or white,
either you get it or not some you know, certified
versus not certified. And I think that view is a
black and white one, like I was saying that we
prefer to use the terms fisheries that are well managed,
managed or that needs improvement, because I think that color
approach is a bit much closer to reality basically. And
here again I think the omnibus going back to the
obnibous matters because if the sustainability reporting is delayed or diluted,
I guess companies could hide behind those shiny equo labels,
you know, rather than hard data. There's also a you
Green claim directive. I don't know if you heard about it,
but it's supposed to point out actually the other way
and say that you know, no vake sustainability claims without
proof basically, and I think retailers who understand that's sustainability
is not the cherry on top of the cake, but
it's actually the flower you need to make the cake
are the ones who will be resilient in crises. And
we see it. We saw it with COVID, we saw
it with economic crisis, because they understand that sustainability is
strategic to them. And I think that's an important thing
to mention.
Speaker 1: I like your descriptions between the cherry and the lower.
Does SFP have move towards more meaningful engagement beyond just labeling?
Speaker 2: Yes, like I said, the Ocean Disclosure Project is an
important platform, like like I was saying, where these companies
can can disclose their sourcing and make public and we
you know, we work with partners and for them to
be able to disclose this disourcing all over the world
and to say okay this to help them to identify
the risk associated to those fishies and and to try
to mitigate them. So I think we yeah, in that sense,
and through this risk based approach, we you know, we're
helping our partners to strengthen sustainability in some important areas.
Speaker 1: Uh good, don't when you mentioned are you you you use?
Are you you card in system credible? Or has it
become politicized?
Speaker 2: Maybe it has become politicized. I think the the idea
behind that carding system is effective. It has forced countries
to improve monitoring and you know, because they mainly risk
losing access to Europe. For those who are listening and
are not familiar with the carding system, this is basically
a system where so a multi step process, you know,
where the European Commission issues formal warning so you get
a yellow card and the idea is to combat au
fishing and behind all this, so if the country at
the end doesn't improve that, then it becomes a red
card and or your product is banned in the market.
But if the country improves that, then it becomes free.
And I think, you know, the system is not perfect,
but and it can feel politicized like you were mentioning,
and you know, small producers also struggle with the bureaucracy
behind this. But I think the idea is effective because
at the end, like I was saying, you know, you
the market is the biggest one and if you if
the doors are closed to your product because things are
are not improved, then then I guess that's a that's
a powerful thing with of course weaknesses and things to improve.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you think it'sticularly fair for small producers and major players.
Speaker 2: So, like I said, I think the use important rules
have made a real difference. I think in this carding
system has pushed countries to improve monitoring and another another
aspects of visheries management. But it's also true, like you're saying,
that smaller producers, especially in developing countries, can find them.
For example, the bureaucracy is overwhelming and we know that.
So if you don't have the capacity to tick every box,
then you're being shut out of the EU market and
even if you're trying to play by the rules. So
and that's where the perception of partners comes in. I think, Well, I.
Speaker 1: Think people in the in the UK can see about
the red tape and how complicated it can be because
it's breaks, it's full of uncertainties, it's expensive to expert
into the EU and it's complicated with paperwork.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean Brexit has complicated trade. I know for
sure that seafood trade and I guess it happened also
in other industries and not an expert on that, but
with the customs checks and health certificates and delays getting
into the U, I know that actually in Scotland, where
you're from, you know, a fishers association have reported millions
lost in the in the first of Brexit. I guess
after all these years, things are getting I wouldn't say
back to normal, but back to a new normal. And
some agreements have been made between the EU and the UK,
but complicated.
Speaker 1: Indeed, are these controls improving stainability which is key or
simply the bigger player?
Speaker 2: Do you mean for for the EU, right for the
EU staff?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Are the Yeah? Are the controls improving because improving
sustainability must be the end goal?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I think the idea for for these policies
is to is to align with development goals, and I
think I think that depends on how they are applied,
because if the U pairs uh, like you know, street
controls with real support for capacity building, then I think
they can level the playing field and also help emerging
economies to improve the fisheries governor. But if they're applied
then evenly, and we see this sometimes, then the danger
is that we may end up reinforcing existing inequalities. You know,
what we will see is basically big players with resources
that keep trading while small scale fishers are squeezed out.
I think maybe it's just a perception of fairness. I
don't think it's the use intention. There's some things to
improve for sure, and weaknesses in the system. I know
that they use very strict with some certain countries, and
maybe we can have the feeling that they are more
soft with others that are politically or commercially important. But yeah,
again back to the omnibus. When these omnibus propose a
scaling back company and dutilities, I think it's sending mixed
sickness because you know, maybe you're very strict at the border,
but then software with the supply chain. So just to
sum it up, I think what we need is consistency
controls that protect responsible fissures and also level this playing
field so we're not creating ne loopholes like over and
over again.
Speaker 1: Basically, do you ever get the sense your plain global
policemen will turning up Blaine Dye the friendly flags or
members did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like I said, maybe I like this analogy with
global policemen. I don't think the U has that much power.
I think it's a perception of unfairness. Like like I said,
so maybe yeah, you're super strict with some countries, are
not with others or you're very strict at the border,
and then you know not across the supply chain. We
know that seafood products travel all over the world, right
They can be fished in the Indian Ocean, then taken
somewhere to be processed, and then in another place to
be transported and then the fly somewhere. So what happens
in the supply chain is also important. So you can
be super strict at the border, but you know where
is this product coming from and what is the journey
of this product? That's also important. I think if you know,
illegal fishing rules only work if they are applied fairly,
basically and to everyone, and that's difficult in a globalized world.
Has big challenges behind this exactly.
Speaker 1: I was going to go mentioned on the supply chain
a fresh Court and Africa process and chain and sold
in Germany. Well we know its.
Speaker 2: Story, yeah, exactly. I think trade's ability, in my opinion,
is one of the main challenges in seafood, and we've
made progress. You know, CATCH certificates and digital pilots and
platforms like CATCH. I don't know if you heard about CATCH.
It stands for centralized access to transparency and CATCH documentation
is basically a new digital system that has been designed
to combat are you fishing? And it's supposed to allow authorities,
importance and exporters to verify the legality of seafood products.
You know, it's on online, so it's paperless and the
idea is to improve tres ability and reduce fraud also,
so we will we will see how this works when
it's starts to be implemented, because the idea behind this
is that only legally caught fish enter the market. But again,
like what happens with this product? Like you say, it
can be caught in Africa, process in China and sold
in Germany. So what happened with this with this product
across the supply chain?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you mentioned ability with the EU. What's still message?
Speaker 2: Good question? I think origin labeling. For example, if you
go to the supermarket and you see product of the EU,
you know, okay, that's a product of the EU. But
what happened you know, if this product has most of
the value chain, has happened elsewhere? Again, going back to
these omnibus I think is extremely important. You know these risks,
why doing these blind spots by extending mid says films
to to from reporting and the idea when when all
these started was to improve also also traceability. So we
need more visibility, I think, not less and disclosure. Like
I said, I mentioned before Ocean Disclosure project that we
do with companies, disclosure of sourcing across the chain should
be mandatory. I'm not talking about our partners, I'm talking
in general, and you could be more ambitious on this,
including you know, processing, because otherwise transparency and traceabilities is
only as strong as its weakest link. You know, if
if one actor doesn't disclose, then the entire change credibility
collapses because because you know, if nine out of ten
are doing the right things, but one we don't know
because in the it's in incognito mode, then then then
we don't know exactly what happened with that product. And
can we call it sustainable? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I mean mentioned transparency. Was so much processing
done and chain, how do we manage the rest and
ensure transparency.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a it's a good question. Like I said,
I think we need more visibility and and this kind
of disclosure should be should be mandatory. I hope that
this catch platform from the EU and the fact that
things are becoming more and more digitalized, will help. I
think fraud increases, the risk of fraud could increase with paper.
So I hope that this, you know, strengthens supply transparency
and also ensures that only legal fish is entering markets,
in this case the the EU. And yeah, I hope
that this also traceabilities, you know, is as one of
the core challenges in the seafood industry is improved. In
the next years to come, we will see I think
gaps remain, and especially in third processing countries.
Speaker 1: Do you feel consumers could be mis laid by original
labeling or over supplified sustainability messaging.
Speaker 2: I don't know if the word is misled because, like
I said, if you go to a supermarket and you
see the product of the EU, I guess that gives
the consumers some assurance that you know the product is
from from the euser. I guess this is a positive thing,
and it's the right, it's the truth, it's the product
of the EU. But probably when we talk about seafood,
you know, most of the value chain happens elsewhere, so
this leveling origin leveling can be a bit misleading. I
hope that this omnibus debate, these ricks risks get reduced
to a minimum, you know, and that these blind spots
you know, are reduced. We will see, we will see.
I'm not super optimistic, to be honest. At the moment.
Speaker 1: You're a positive guy. You come over, you come over positive.
So yeah, I understand what you're saying. That hopefully story
will happen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, we need to do in another another
podcast where in a in a year or two and
see and see where where we are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that would be good. We'll just take a lot
of that is good moving aquaculture. Is aquaculture helping relieve
pressure on whalestock, do you feel, or just creating a
parallel set of sustainability issues.
Speaker 2: I think. I mean, aquaculture is part of the solution
because because you know, it's the fastest growing food sector globally,
so according to f a O, it's pretty much half
of global fish consumption and it will soon or even
even over half, and it will soon surpass capture fisheries entirely.
So they need to be part of the solution because
because they're going to be an important part of the
of the seafood we consume. We already do. If people
go to a supermarket now, they will probably find more
aquaculture than than than wildfish in the shelves or in
the in the places when when they buy seafood. For sure,
I think it can relieve pressure on wild stocks, and
I think the U has relatively strict roots on water quality,
animal health, and this is control and restock in But
but enforcement depends, and the risk is that we treat
aquaculture as a silver ballet. Aquaculture, like any other industry,
is not good per se. It's not silver ballet, and
it brings its own challenges. So you know, the habitat
impacts FITS sustainability. SFP is heavily involved in this FIT sustainability, antibiotics,
use labor rights, et cetera. So it's not I hope
it becomes the solutions, the solution, or part of the solution,
because soon it's going to be the vast maturity of
what we're eating. And when it comes to sea.
Speaker 1: Did you say regulation alls a culture to the same
standard as captured fascialists.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean they're both under the Common Fishes Policies
sustainability objectives, and I think there's a difference again here
between aquaculture of course done in the EU and outside
there is the Federation of European Aquaculture Produces and it
basically groups fish farming associations and associations, and it's that
they're the leading consultative body, let's call it for European
interest and I know they take all these very seriously.
Speaker 1: Are we seeing more aquaculture entered in EU apply chains
without the same level of scrutiny.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the risk is always there in a
globalized economy. I was making before, the difference between you know,
aquaculture done in the EU and aquaculture coming from from
other places or process else where. The risk is always there.
We're in a globalized economy and with different countries and
regions that are applaying different rules. So imports of farm
products are rising. We also see in this and in
the U, and often you know from from countries that
maybe have weaker social and environmental oversight. So that's why
sustainability reporting reporting and and again threatened idea debus is
so so crucial.
Speaker 1: Yeah. If we move on to breakxit, as the UK
going its own way, it changed how EU markets behave
or is it's still business as usual for them?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think we we We briefly mentioned Brexit before,
and I think you use the word complicated, and I
think in general Brexit has complicated trade. I am not
familiar with other industries, but with the seafood industry, I
know for good that you know, seafood exporters have have
struggled and there's been important delays getting into the EU market,
but things have Time has passed since Brexit was voted,
and some agreement agreements have been made with the EU,
and I hope that the spirit seems like there's a
split now of collaboration between the EU and the UK
continues because yeah, EU and UK buyers, I think they're
strongest when they speak with one voice, you know, even
though Brexit made that harder. But hopefully this will improve
in the next years to come.
Speaker 1: It's breakshit made any material difference to how you buyers
source and influence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you know, sustainability, the UK now has freedom,
freedom putting these two in brackets to set its own
management plans, and you know, I know they have launch
schemes like the fisheries management plans under the day the
UK Fisheries Act. But I also feel like divergence is
growing in some areas. The UK is looking for or
flexibility for some of the fleets and while the U
S you know, sticks to quota shedding agreements under the
Trade and Comparational Agreements, so that that weekends both sides.
But if the U and the the u K fragment
on sustainability standards, I think global supprise suppliers may face
signals mixed signals, you know, instead of United market demand.
And I feel like that also reduced, reduces the leverage
both uh you know, had to drive reforms abroad basically
and and and again going back, I'm gonna mention the
News in its question that debates as another layer because
if the U weekends, for example, let's say, uh it's
sustainability rules, why the UK stays very ambitious or vice versa.
I think we risk policy divergence instead of of leadership.
Speaker 1: There's a perception from your side that the UK becoming
more agail and just inability or just more isolated.
Speaker 2: Well, there's isolation in that independence for sure, whether and
I'm not saying is negative or positive because because it
could split up things the you you know, there are
there are several countries within the EU and and coming
into agreements take time and sometimes these are long conversations,
and this is stidious with heavy bureaucracy. So I guess
when it's only you that need to decide what to do,
things become easier. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they
are positive. So when it comes to fisheries management, but
you know, we will see what happens in the next
year to come. I hope, I hope that there will
be some agreement and overlapping the decisions that are taken,
at least in field trees management, and at least when
we're talking about scientific data science in general, because if
we're talking about stock assessments, I think it's difficult to
find different interpretations. You know, when a stock assessment says
that Northeast Atlantic makrel is struggling and the stock is
will soon collapse, there's not many things we can do
about it other than try to reduce fishing and you know,
manage the stock as as good as possible. Yeah, especially
considering stocks by the way that are found between EU
and UK waters, because this happens, you know, we share
some of these waters.
Speaker 1: So yeah, there's an alignment between UK and efforts on
seafood market reform.
Speaker 2: I don't know if alignment is the word. Like I said,
some fisheries management plants have been have been done in
the past years under the UK Fistories Act, but I
don't know if alignment is the is the world, Like
I said, I have the feeling that the UK. I'm
not based in the UK, but it's a feeling that
and it's a feeling that some of the market partners
are are also having. The UK is pursuing flexibility basically,
and and you know the EU is uh sticking to
this quota shedding that that I was mentioning before this
quota shedding agreements under the Trade and Comporation Agreement that
was signed. So we will see, we will see. I
hope that there's no fragmental sustainability standards between the UK
and the U in the next years to come. To
be honest, I think that would be very negative for
the stocks that are present in our our waters, say
our EU and UK waters.
Speaker 1: Well with a substance. Just know, we certainly see there's
a lot govern rather than shared because certainly in Scotland here,
but in the UK and general, we see the fish
that Stammar gave away and the rapes gave away for
over twelve years and we didn't feel. There's not a
lot of feeling that we got much back in return.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I think Brexit has complicated all this,
And I don't know. I mean, I'm not blaming Brexit
as a solidly because of this, but I think and
again I think in the in the past year, things
that have soften a bit and some agreements have been
made that Yeah, I understand why why you're saying, Jim,
and yeah, I think it's probably.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we talked a lot about what's wrong, but where
there's real opportunity.
Speaker 2: Between the the the UK and the U.
Speaker 1: Yeah, un global and global.
Speaker 2: H that's a good question. I think there's some opportunities
in generally moving from a narrow compliance mindset to maybe
a broader leadership role. I think markets and that's the
work I do on a daily basis. I think market
with through our partners, they can demand better data. For example,
they can they can reward improvement products talking about fisheries
improvement products FIPS, and also support innovation and they can
also highlight the you know, the social or human side
of things that we were mentioning before and I'm thinking
about social responsibility and fishers rise and fair working conditions.
So I don't know. I think the future of market
driven sustainability goes through transparency, climate accountability, and maybe joint investment.
So with all the stakeholders that are present in the
in this industry, interesting.
Speaker 1: If you had five minutes with the next EU Fascialist commissioner,
what would you say?
Speaker 2: Five minutes only, I'll have to summarize a lot. If
I had five minutes, I'd say a few things. I'd say, Well, first,
don't backtrack. We've been talking a lot in this podcast
about the famous obnibus. Don't backtrack. The omnibus may simplify,
but you know, if it backtracks and sustainability reporting, I
think we will lose credibility. And that was not the
initial idea. There were two directives, important directives, the Corporate
Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Due Diligence Directive that must
remain strong. In my opinion, they are the backbone of
transparency and so I would say, please, please, just make
don't backtrack and make compliances simpler for small and medium
medium companies so that this is not seen as a
burden to all these companies. Then probably, like we also
mentioned in the podcast, to go beyond voluntary. I think
some things are voluntary and should be mandatory. Make this
closure mandatory with climate accountability also integrated into the supply Chaine,
this is something that you can do. Investment, we briefly
touch on this, but I think investing in blended finance
is important, you know, using we see a lot of
private you know, investment and money going into different projects,
but using public money to leverage this private investment could
be a positive thing. We will see if this is
a reality or not. And I'm talking about EU funding
him especially then well maybe I guess this is not
for the for the officeries commissioner, but I think empower
markets to lead. I think that we also mentioned today
that markets have a big power and can change things.
And last, maybe last, but not least and again here
maybe not to him because it's not a demand, but
I always I'm sure you will agree, Jim, and and
to never forget that you know what what we have
in the supermarket selves is you know, it's there. I'm
talking about seafood is there because it's been fished by
fishers and that's a hard work. So yeah, it's important
to highlight this and and never forget it. I think
it's important to make sure that they have what they
need and that their rights are respected because it's it's
a hard work and and and this guys do a
very hard and they just work for for us to
have seafood in a supermarket.
Speaker 1: So yeah, good. What are the most effective livers the
EU could pull to drive reform globally?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think we mentioned before that the have The
weight that the EU has is important because it's the
as one market is the world's biggest seafood important by
by value if we you know, if we consider by
by countries, is the US is number one, But so
so market access is still the more powerful lever in
and in this case in the you the messages, that
is you, if you want to have your seafood here,
then you have to meet some some some standards and
and and that's where the you know, this is why uh,
I think the you could be more ambitious because they
have they have power too, you know, and and that
coupled with other stuff and we mentioned partnerships, we mentioned
capacity building in our previous questions. I think this could
push the you to to make sustainability to Norman not
the exception, and to drive change basically through through the
weight that this region has in the seafood industry worldwide.
Speaker 1: Basically, are there examples of bold market leadership from me
you buyers that others should follow.
Speaker 2: Yes, we mentioned before the Ocean Disclosure project. I think
this is something something that is there. It's important to remember.
And some retailers are decigdning to to to publishing. You know,
they're sourcing data through through this initiative. Some some others
that are working with us that they are demanding not
like we said, not just certifications, but they are getting
more and more active in fisheries improvement projects in Philps
And I think that's that's that's bold because it goes
beyond the meme. So so it's pushing the whole supply
chain to improve. Small steps, but I think little but little,
we're seeing some improvements. And I think this these kind
of steps done by big important retailers send a signal
to to producers to so because like we said, if
you want a shelf space in Europe, then you need
to be part of the solution, and you know, not
just compliant on paper. That's the way I see it.
Speaker 1: Do you see a future for market driven sustainability driven
as I know we've talked for, but you see an
opportunity that it can be market driven.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think we we touch on these points during
the this podcast. I think the opportunities in moving from
a compliant mindset to to to a leadership role, and
I think that's an important also competitive advantage actually for
these companies if they want to differentiate themselves from from
other companies. Markets can demand better data, they can reward fishing,
you know, improvement products, and can support innovation. But they
can also highlight, like we said we said before, social
responsibility and and you know the human side of things
like fisher rights and for working conditions. So basically three
three main points transparency I would say, and climate, accountability
and probably joint investment. That's the way I see the future,
you know, this market driven sustainability in the next years
to come. Home.
Speaker 1: Markets influence fashion is a stainability and practice.
Speaker 2: I think markets, you know, market companies and markets in general.
And I'm thinking about the companies that we work with
and our partners. They can be involved in fisheries sustainability
at different levels. We SFPs heavily involved in fips and
there are some quite a lot of fips at a
global level. And these fips have you know, points that
should be improved and things that should be improved, and
these improvements and are done over time, and sometimes some
of these companies decide to be involved in these fisheries
improvement products. I think the same happens with fishes that
are certified. Some of these fisheries get certified, but they
have some conditions. Most of them actually when they get certified,
have conditions that should be improved. So there are ways
to be involved to make sure that you know, to
follow upon that and make sure that those conditions are
are being improved over time and that they will be
closed and solved before the next certification cycle. We mentioned
also before the Ocean Disclosure project. There are some initiatives
out there that you know, where markets could be could
be involved and that could actually make a difference if
they join this movement in the water.
Speaker 1: Actually, what your views the expectation from buyers, retailers and
consumers and how these pressures ship escialist management.
Speaker 2: I think buyers, you know, retailers and consumers. They all
play a huge role in shaping how fisheries are managed.
So when retail set, for example, high standards on sustainability,
treasability or labor rights that we mentioned before, I think
those expectations can you know, cascade down the supply chain
and push producers to improve. So and consumers also matter
in this case when when they demand responsibly source seafood,
you know they're at the end of this long supply chain.
It gives retailers them the confidence to make stronger commitments.
I think the create tailors in general are open to
see what consumers want and they are open to make
changes to adapt to those to those demands. So consumers
have an extremely high power to decide changes when it
comes to sustainability and also in other areas. But talking
about sustainability, of course, the pressure can cut both ways.
And you know, if if the focus is only on,
for example, on low prices, that reach incentives to cut corners.
And but when markets reward good practices, and I think
we've seen you know, we've mentioned examples in this podcast today,
I think it sends a very strong message that that
sustainable fisheries are not just good for the ocean in
a very simplified and maybe naive way. But they are
good for business too. And this is this is something
that is you know, it's it's important to adapt the
language to the market and to make sure that the
thing happens in the water.
Speaker 1: Like we said before, indeed, indeed that's good. What's your
view on the sustainable facialist partner view on social responsibility
and human rights and seafood?
Speaker 2: So this is an extremely extremely dedicate, an important subject.
Like I said before, we are not experts on you know,
human rights, and but we try to learn about this
and get more familiar with this. Also, we started to
partnership with business and human rights and the GEO that
is helping us to to have to to learn about
how to proceed and this is what we are also advising
our partners. So how to identify a risk, how to
make sure that you know to mitigate it also, but
then what to do when when this problem arises. I'm
talking about human rights. Yeah, it's a delicate thing. There
are some examples out there, and you know, serious human
rights violations all over the world, not only in fisheries
but also in aquaculture for example, in some areas, and
it's important to we're not experts. Certifications can offer some
level of confidence, but again some of them fail to
verify that, you know, human rights abusinesses are not happening.
It's a delicate point. More and more often, people and
I think consumers are also realizing that it doesn't matter
if the product is sustainable, if it's coming from a place,
for example, where kids are are working, you know, or
there are some slaves on board of some of the vessels,
like we've seen in some areas of the Southeast Asian
So so, yeah, and dedicate an important point.
Speaker 1: I had a request by a whistle bluer want expose
a situation. People contacted them from a farm and then
the and it didn't I didn't push it, but they disappeared.
But it was really horrible, you know, sort of quid what.
Speaker 2: In Yeah, yeah, you know, some some journalists like Ian Urbina.
I don't know if you heard about the work is
done through the Outlaw Report, Uh, you know, the found
you know, important human rights abuses in the in the
fishery sector. And I think this has opened the eyes
to to some companies too. I think the message for
them here and I don't think these companies. They know
it and they go ahead with business as usual. But
what we try to tell them is that it's important
to identify your risks and try to mitigate them because
otherwise the reputational risks that this represents is huge, is important,
and so it's better to act now, uh, to to
to try to mitigate those risks than to wait and
then see yourself involving in a difficult situation. And we've
seen also these in other industries like text type.
Speaker 1: So who did you say was the person or something?
Speaker 2: Ian Urbina is A is a jan journalist Ian Robina Urbina,
you are b I n A.
Speaker 1: You are b I? Thank you A look that up.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The the Outlaw Ocean Report or the Outlaw Ocean Project,
I think it was is giving a lot of details
about human rights abuses in the seafood industry.
Speaker 1: Excellent, Thank you, David. Where can our listeners follow you online?
Speaker 2: So they can I'm very active on LinkedIn. If they
want to take a look at my LinkedIn profile, uh,
they can contact me through through my profile poke. I
will be also at the end of this month in
the Global Seafood Alliance Conference in Karta in Colombia. In
case any of our you know, those who are listening
will be there. They can also text me and I'll
be happy to meet them if they have any questions.
Speaker 1: Excellent. I think we could fold up and I would
just like to thank you very much, David. I enjoyed that.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Thank you very much