Speaker 1: Hello everyone, and thanks for joining us again on The
Seafood Matter's podcast. In order to help her podcast series,
please press subscribe and share it with family and friends.
Joining us today is Wendy Chadwick, a PhD researcher at
the University of Hull whose work tackles one of the
biggest headaches in the net zero conversation. This spat you'll squeeze.
She's digging deep into how the race to decarbonize, particularly
through changes to the supply chain and infrastructure, is putting
serious pressure on land use, logistics, networks and communities. A
sharp thinker with a no nonsense approach, Wendy's bringing fresh,
grounded personspective on the realities of going green and why
it's not as spatually or politically tidy as policymakers would
have us believe. When we hear net zero, the conversation
is usually about land cars, heat pumps or solar panels.
But what happens when the road is the sea and
your engines older than the minister setting the target. Today
we're digging into the meth, myth and reality of net
zero in the UK fishing fleet with someone who's been
studying the cluttered feescape. We're all trying to navigate. Let's
go and listen. Hi Wendy, and welcome to Seafood Matters.
Speaker 2: Hi Jim, Yes, sir, thank you for inviting me.
Speaker 1: Thank you, if we'll just get in. You've taken a
bit of a different route in your academia. What brought
you back into it or why this field in particular.
Speaker 2: Well, I came from the time back in the eighties
when I left school, when some youngsters went further in
academia and some left school and went straight into the
working environment. I came from a working class family and
that's exactly what we all did. So I left and
went into the work education. I did my education, but
it wasn't at the forefront of my family's probably commitments
at the time. And it was later on in life
that I decided to go back and improve my education
and that led me to the University of Aberdeen when
I started a access to degree program purely out of
personal development. It then led into an undergraduate degree at
Aberdeen and a master's at Aberdeen, and here I am
now at the University of Hull doing a PhD at
nearly sixty years old.
Speaker 1: You're given too much away, too much Informas you've lived
in Northern Ireland, a region that I've seen the brunt
of industrial shift and economic upheaval, has that shaped how
you see the Green Transition.
Speaker 2: I was born in Northern Ireland, but I've spent little
of my life living there. I've probably been there for
five years of my life. I grew up as a
child in Australia. I was part of the ten pound
Palm movement in the late sixties and much of my young,
teenage and adult working life would have been in England,
shaping the Green Transition. I lived around the area of
Stoke on Trent, which obviously a lot of people will
know is was high for coal mining, steel works, the
pottery industry, all of which you've now gone. Was that
the start of the Green transition all those years ago?
Possibly I'm more towards the Blue Transition and the ocean,
and that was really shaped by living around Peterhead and
Fraserburgh for the last twenty three years until I came
to Whole recently, and just being around the coast, the
oil and gas sector, the fishing sector, that kind of
really got me into looking at the Blue Transition and
that movement towards our future.
Speaker 1: You're the first with any connection with fishing to use
the word Fraser Burro.
Speaker 2: They're usually Brockers, Brockers and Peter heat Yes.
Speaker 1: You're not long in Peter ahead before you know why
it's called the blue tune.
Speaker 2: Yes, twenty three years though, but I didn't. I didn't
ever go down the route of the blue tune.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, you're very determined and driven. Have you always
been that way or have these topics brought that?
Speaker 2: I've always been a very determined person in life. I
was brought up with the mindset by my father that
if you want something in life, you go and get
it yourself. You don't hang around and wait for it
to come to you. And also to take opportunities that
come along when they arise, because they never come along again.
They may never come along again. So for that reason,
I've always been determined. And if I'm interested in something,
I like to get stuck into it and to enjoy
it at the same time. So, yes, I have been and.
Speaker 1: Have your people up the wrong way?
Speaker 2: I think I probably have over time, because I can
be I can be quite strong in my opinions, just
like anybody. There are occasions that people would say, yes,
I have, But I think as I've got older, I've
got a little bit better and a little bit more
tolerant and learn not to maybe do that anymore and
to just accept things the way they are and not
make not make an issue of thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So yeah, yeah, yeah, let's go back to the start.
What moment idea really grabbed you and made you say,
this is what I want to spend years digging into.
Speaker 2: Well, my undergraduate degree at Aberdeen was geography and I
did a fishery related dissertation which was the Marine Stewards
Council ECO label, so did quite a lot of work
around Aberdeenship. Peterhead and Fraser were doing that. Then I
did my masters was Sustainability Transitions, and again I did
a fishery related thesis which was in Shetland with aquaculture
and really everything that I did I really was drawn
towards the fishing and the marine environment. And this PhD
landed on my phone one morning from a friend in Auckland,
New Zealand doing her PhD. Actually she was a former
Aberdeen UNI student, and the words were Wendy and this
has got your name written all over it, this is
for you. And when I looked at it carbonizing the
fishing fleet and it was the social aspect of those social,
cultural and behavioral responses, I knew at that moment in
time that that PhD was definitely for me.
Speaker 1: Doing a PhD is no joke. What kept you going
through the tough days?
Speaker 2: It is tough. I don't think anybody would say otherwise.
I don't think it matters how old or how young
you are, you're experiencing the same issues. I would say
that a very good supervisory support team is really valuable,
which is what I've got at the University of Hull,
and I'm very grateful for that. I can go to
them and talk about anything and that I get that support.
I think you have to have a good network around you,
with friends, family, even neighbors. I've bent theirrea once or twice.
And most of all, I think you've got to have
a real passion for the topic that you're researching in
your PhD and having that passion and get you through
those tough days because you're doing it for the right reasons.
And I think that's what gets you through, having that
passion and desire to succeed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're working in these big global challenges. But is
there a personal stake in this for you, something that
makes it more than just research.
Speaker 2: When I first looked at this question, Jim, I thought
that there wasn't a personal stake involved. But having thought
about it, yes, I think there is. It isn't just
research that I'm going to do and then just walk
away from and forget about. The whole point of doing
research is that you make a difference. That you go
out there and you find those problems, and the aim
at the end of the day is that something will
change and happen as a result of it. And that's
my aim. I want something to come out of this
that will better the fishing sector on this route to
net zero and decarbonizing.
Speaker 1: Really interesting and manic question. I know you said your
five years. You just you're born in Northern Ireland, you
lived abit five years there. I just feel it sticks.
I'm from a small fishing village in Helms though, but
I still and I've been out there for over fifty years.
If anybody asked me where I'm from, I'm still help me.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The rarathern Irish grit meets academic Ivory Tower. How do
you balance those two worlds?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I actually balanced those two worlds very well, Jim.
I think having forty years work experience what you might
call in the real world as some would say, has
helped me balance those two worlds. I've got experience of
dealing with lots of people different walks of life. I
know that the best way that you can get on
with other people and to get the best out of
them for your work is that you treat them the
same as you would like to be treated yourself. You
don't put yourself on a different pedestal above them, which
some people may say academics do in this Ivory Tower,
and I don't do that. I believe that the people
that I am working with in my research, they are
the experts, not me, and I am learning from them.
And for that reason, I've been very successful on my
trip in Northern Island for the last two weeks. And
by just having that attitude and that approach, I think
that that's where those two worlds have been able to
come together and been very successful.
Speaker 1: Very good. And what exactly is but you'll squeeze and
why should the average person care about it? Well?
Speaker 2: When we talk about the spatial squeeze. Most of our
transition to that green energy transition really started on the land.
You think about all of our wind farms that were
on farms across the United Kingdom because they are spacious
and they're probably one of the only places where wind
farms can go. But in obviously recent years, attention has
been more towards the ocean environment and using that ocean
for meeting global commitments towards net zero. So as that
attention has shifted towards that marine environment and for ocean
based solutions, we've found that many industries and are competing
for that same space, which is actually becoming more cluttered
as we increase particularly offshore wind, which will rise dramatically
between now and twenty to fifty. And along with that
we have conflicts within the marine environment. They all try
and do you know, expand within that sector.
Speaker 1: How do we get to this mess know, with a
cluttered sea scape?
Speaker 2: Well, I think the transition in the the marine environment
has been quite quick, and what we're finding is that
policy doesn't necessarily align or isn't catching up, or it
isn't keeping pace with that marine spatial squeeze taking place.
So a lot of our policies are either outdated or
they don't meet the current net zero climate change agenda,
and that leads to more of a messy marine environment
and more conflicts.
Speaker 1: Is there one body meant to bring order to it
all or is everyone just fighting for their own turf.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think that's a very good point. Although the
UK government have overriding say on our policies with our
marine spatial planning, we have lots of industries that have
their own agendas, their own commitments. They're all expanding a
lot at the same time, and they don't particularly collaborate
very well. There's not a very good joined up approach
and that's what that's what really makes things rather messy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can understand that, and cunny electric or hydrogen
tic really scale in the fleet.
Speaker 2: There is the opportunity at the moment for electric batteries
with very small vessels in the fleet. There is, however,
a lack of confidence because nobody's rushing out to do it.
There are some grants around that they could, but I'm
hearing that some of those they used. There was some
one hundred percent grants around and there was a small
uptake and then it dropped to fifty percent, and then
I'm being told that, you know, you have to find
all of the money upfront and then claw back your
part later, which and there isn't a surplus of money
in the fleet to be able to do that, so
there's a little bit of a barrier there. Hydrogen is
one that's being talked about for the larger vessels, although
that they haven't yet decided what's safe and what will
be used, and there is actually the opportunity for alternative fuels,
but again all of this is very early in the pipeline.
Speaker 1: Are small boats being left behind? Do they feel?
Speaker 2: I think small boats do feel as if they're not
considered as important when it comes to grant funding. Some
fishes from the small scale sector have told me that
all of the grants might go to larger vessels and
they don't get a chance for any of the grant funding.
Not everybody would agree with that. Others would say that
it's accessible to all, but there are some that have
obviously said otherwise, who's.
Speaker 1: Really benefiting from the low carbon technology push?
Speaker 2: There is very little around at the moment for there
to be a benefit. Most of the fishing sector that
have made any changes, for example, a fuel meter or
maybe a hydrogen cleaning solution which like the ecomotus, which
cleans the fuel and less emissions. Anyone who's changed their engines,
they're not doing it or I've not been told that
they're doing it for any other reason then for reducing
their fuel bill, but indirectly they are actually reducing emissions,
but that is not their primary reason for making changes.
Speaker 1: Is there a hidden hierarchy in how space is allocated
for the green transition?
Speaker 2: Yes, I think there is. Offshore wind structures are cluster's
critical infrastructure on the journey to net zero and global commitments,
and because they're considered critical infrastructure, they tend to be
classed as being more important out in the marine environment,
and I think the fishing sector would certainly agree with that.
You know, the fishing sector feels particularly displaced because of
offshore wind, which causes them to have to travel further
out to see for their catch, which is often less catch.
But they're using more feel, burning more emissions, and actually
their operational costs are higher, and they will say that
that is a result of them having to divert around
offshore wind farms, which I would say is probably at
the top of that hierarchy for the government.
Speaker 1: Yes, I mean there must be a feeling that certain
sectors or regions get preferential treatment offshore when coastal fishing,
electric vehicle infrastructure.
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean Scotland is renowned for its wind. Therefore
you will find much more offshore wind farms in the
Scottish seas than you will do in other places around
the UK. So they might feel a little bit hard
done by, particularly since we have Peterhead and Fraserburg are
very major ports up on the northeast coast and they're
having to you know, juggle their their space with the
offshore wind which will increase and of course if there
is an impact, it does come back on fragile fishing communities,
which you know, if they're already impacted, then they're going
to feel that much more so than maybe you know,
larger fishing ports.
Speaker 1: And do you think it's feared.
Speaker 2: I would say it's not fair. No, I think it's
just the.
Speaker 1: Way it be going, yeah, or just inevitable.
Speaker 2: I think it's inevitable. At the end of the day.
The want to meet targets by twenty fifty and forty
five in Scotland and they will do what they want
to do to be able to meet those targets.
Speaker 1: And the green supply chain sounds good and paper, but
are there specially.
Speaker 2: Valuable potentially not. I think a lot of decisions are
made without any real research going into the process. We're
making decisions and we're making commitments that we may not
be able to achieve and we may not be able
to meet. So I think some may be achievable, but
there will always be parts of the sector and industry
that just the green transition may not be achievable, and
I think we need to appreciate that.
Speaker 1: And with added pleasures like the electrification in port up
grades and new logistics hubs, can the U land and
infrastructure actually cope.
Speaker 2: I think in terms of port infrastructure, they're already finding
that that is quite challenging. Some of the bigger ports
will probably be able to have the infrastructure in place.
I know of some that have already got shore power
down on the southeast on the South coast, for like
other vessels coming in from around the globe, many ports
do not have shore power, and some do, whether or
not they can facilitate alternative fuel and tanks in these harbors,
for example, is another challenging thought. And some of them
actually are heritage type harbors where they've been around for
hundreds of years and you can't go digging up the
ground and laying cables. It just may not be possible.
So that is an area that needs to be addressed,
and I do believe that it is being looked at
and they're trying to find solutions.
Speaker 1: Do you think tames that were set in a bottlenecks
that'll stole the transition?
Speaker 2: Yes, I think that is likely to happen. If we
think about the fishing fleet in particular, we don't have
via commercially viable technology at the moment, and it may
be quite some time off. They're working on it all
the time. When that happens, I think is very questionable
at the moment. But when and if we do have
technology that is suitable, then there is likely to be
a bottleneck in fitting out new vessels or upgrading or
retrofitting vessels, because a new vessel can take you know,
it can take two, three, four, five years, and if
we have you know, over five thousand vessels in the
fleet or whatever it might be, then there will clearly
be a bottleneck at some stage, which will then slow
down the process of transitioning dramatically.
Speaker 1: What are the spatial consequences of decarbonizing fast, especially for
legacy industries, land constraint the areas.
Speaker 2: There is a danger if we try to do this
too quick that there will be winners and losers. But
it also could mean that what we choose to do
now may not be suitable in a few years time.
And that is one particular problem in the fishing sector.
If the sector was to go with what's available right now,
they don't know whether or not the same infrastructure is
going to be there in five years time, so it
has to come at the same time, and they have
to match each other. We can't be doing one thing
first and then waiting for the next. It may never
come along. So I think we need to be really
structured in how we process both infrastructure and vessels and
technology moving forward.
Speaker 1: Are we just displitsing emissions or disruption to place with
fewer political and planning protections.
Speaker 2: Yes, we could well be doing that. There are countries
around the world that are not looking towards net zero.
They may not have the know how, they may not
have the funding, and so yeah, there is a danger.
That's exactly what we might be doing moving forward.
Speaker 1: Yes, So what does zero mean at sea?
Speaker 2: That is actually a very good question that I was
asked multiple times in the last two weeks in Northern
Ireland and they asked me to explain what I was doing,
and I said, well, I didn't like to use the
word net zero because people can get a little bit
frightened about that word, so I tried to word the
word decarbonizing instead. I mean, ultimately, it's meant to be
that we don't produce any emissions at sea. Wherever we
release that we you know, we bring back in to
balance that out to zero. That essentially what it means
how we do it on a vessel at sea is
really what all of the trials are trying to do
at the moment. How can that work and how can
that work for everybody?
Speaker 1: I mean, NED zero isn't clearly defined in the seafood context, though.
Speaker 2: You're right, net zero itself can have very multiple meanings
and definitions depending on what the sector is and how
somebody might view that. For example, you might hear net zero,
you might hear carbon neutral, carbon neutral being kind of
that that's not even what goes out comes back in
and as balanced, and we also class that as being
technically net zero. So I think that causes difficulties in
how people view what it means to them and how
they can possibly do it. And that's where we have problems.
Speaker 1: I mean, land based assumptions don't translate well to boards
or coastlines.
Speaker 2: No, that's right. And when you talk I mean about
ago about planning, a planning for offshore wind farms is
taken with land based policies in the ocean, so, and
the ocean is not the same as land, as you say,
so the difficulties are different. I think we should have
our own marine policy for marine industries and we shouldn't
be using land based policies out in the sea. Another
one of those would be biodiversity net gain, which is
used on land about leaving the environment in the same
state at which you found it, and that can't work
necessarily in the sea because it's not like for like.
So they've brought in something called marine net gain. But
I don't see how you can have an oil and
gas platform in an ocean seabed for seventy years or
an offshore wind farm for thirty forty years and then
be able to put that seabed, that land back to
the state it was when you found it, which is
technically what these policies ask for. So I think that's
a very gray area and one that I would follow
much more closely as to how they're going to deal
with that.
Speaker 1: What does zero actually mean when you're talking about vessels.
Speaker 2: Harbors in the harbor, or just vessels and harbors. Yeah, yeah,
I think everyone. Everybody knows that all industries need to
reduce the emissions that they emit into the atmosphere, and
the fishing industry appreciates that. They accept that they also
have a part to play. They are all trying to
figure out how they can do that, because, as you know,
our fleet can range from a very small six to
seven meter under ten crab potter to ye one hundred
and twenty five meter pelagic vessel or a very large
proNT roller finding net zero that suits each every one
of those different parts of the fleet will mean something different,
and it's not just a one size fits all. Whether
that's changing engine, whether that's a change in alternative fuel,
or whether that's completely retrofitting vessels and restructuring them to
burn less emissions as they travel through the water. There's
lots and lots of different things that need to be
considered before we can really say what does net zero
mean for each vessel or part of the fleet.
Speaker 1: Really interesting the next funny enough that it just walks
into my next point. I was going to ask you,
do you think the government understands the difference between land
based and marine emissions.
Speaker 2: I don't think as much attention is paid to the
marine environment as it is on land. At the moment,
the pressure is currently on the agricultural sector and reducing
their emissions first, because it's well known and documented that
the agri sector of beef and dairy are very high
compared to fish and the fishing sector. The fishing sector
emits considerably less, let's say, than the agricultural sector, so
the pressure is on the agricultural side and not on
the fishing side. At the moment. They're probably also doing
that or not. Probably they are currently leaving the fishing
sector not completely alone, but they're not putting great pressure
on because they also appreciate that there is an issue
with no technology at the moment, but that is not
going to last for very long and the fishing sector
knows that it's coming and eventually it will be their
turn and they will get pressure. But in terms of
do they understand the government understand, no, I don't think
they do. I think this type of research I'm doing
will hopefully help them understand more about the problems that
we do have in the marine environment.
Speaker 1: And have you any access with government?
Speaker 2: I have or will? I have interviewed government agencies and
got their input and I'd like to hope that that
will continue and I can build a relationship with government
agencies to help this research move forward.
Speaker 1: Do you feel you come across a feeling at times
people just are we just burning money chasing and workable
tech for boats that want even exist in ten years time?
Speaker 2: I think some people do feel that that's going might happen,
And in fact, some people would say, well, why would
I want to spend that money when the government might
change their minds in five years or ten years and
I could have just spent a million pounds on an engine.
So there's also that lack of confidence whether or not
this will continue to be seen through to the end.
Speaker 1: On the supply chain. Blaine Sports, I would maybe see
most emissions maybe after the fish has landed.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, once we get to port and those fish
then go to their intended destinations. A lot of our
fish in the UK, as you're probably aware, is exported.
I think it's about eighty percent, and we import a
very large amount of fish that we also eat. So
it isn't just the fishing vessel, and it isn't just
the processor. And they actually on land can do more
than you can on a vessel. Let's see, they're doing
things like led lighting, They're turning down the temperatures in
their refrigerants and freezers. They've got much more scope. On land,
they can put up a turbine for their energy for
electric where fishing vessels can't do that. But one of
the biggest problems in that supply chain are imports and
exports and the emissions that are relative to those which
are global. We're importing and exporting globally, and the emissions
come from that as well, not just the fishing vessel.
Speaker 1: Just thinking a bit of cold storage processing haulands really
good attention. Mm hmm.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the process is due. I mean I've
been outside Peterhead Fish market and I've seen all of
the transport, transportation the lorries lined up, they're all going,
they're all traveling down to the docks and across Europe
to you know, to transport that fish. Again, I think
with transport there is better opportunities. And I think some
processes I understand, are taking it very seriously while other
processors are not. And it was described to me as
some are burying their head in the sand. That pressure
will start to come on processes from retailers and it's
starting already, so they have to do something about it,
and that will only increase as we move forward.
Speaker 1: Okay, because I mean, why aren't we talking about the
missions once fish is out of the water. As we said,
it is important for sometimes cleaner than local cat And
does that mean we're back in the wrong horse.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a very big field, Jim to look at.
We use the word local, and I've done this a
few times and you've just used the word local. Locally
caught fish can actually go to China to be processed
and end up back where it started, and that happens
all the time. So locally caught fish would be landed
at the dock and remains in the vicinity and the
region that it's landed, because unfortunately, a lot of our
fish does get exported to other locations, gutted, fileted, etc.
And then re imported back to our processing factories and
then ends up in our supermarket freeze us more.
Speaker 1: I listened to you and just thinking you would have
been well pleased with me when I had the restaurant
I had and scrubs there the seafood restaurant captain's gully
I used. When I saw boats landing, I would walk
to the board landing and walk back with the fish.
Speaker 2: That's what that's what local fish means. When you're buying
it in the supermarket, you're not buying a locally caught
seafood products. Even if it says it's from the Northeast
and it's gone somewhere else. Most of the time it's
gone somewhere else. And those carbon emissions linked with that
are high, and I don't think that's being recognized at
the moment, and the consumer definitely doesn't recognize that.
Speaker 1: On the people in ports, I mean, who's paying the
price es Fishing communities are being asked to modernize without
real help.
Speaker 2: Yes, I don't know where the money will come from
from the majority of ports some ports are owned by
local authorities, and I was one recently that was local
authority owned. They wouldn't necessarily maybe have a great amount
of money. I think there will be a reliance on
funding from the government or a private sector to do
a lot of ports and actually maybe just a fishing
fleet in general. I think there will be a very
high reliance on funding.
Speaker 1: And from what you're saying earlier describing Peterhead the market
and it's just a how buzz round the fish market,
I just love it. And if you skills resks been
lost in the rush to green everything.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this has been a conversation that I've had with
lots throughout the fishing sector. We talk about these potentially
new electric engines or transitioning to new technology, but we
also need an existing skilled workforce to go with those,
and we currently don't have it. So one of the
concerns would be that if the diesel engine breaks down
on the fishing vessel, that fisherman knows exactly where to go,
can get something apart off the shelf and he can
probably fix it himself or somebody very nearby will do
that for him. If we're moving on to new technologies,
we also need that skilled workforce to match that, and
there is there's likely to be a gap, and there's
a lack of confidence that there won't be that skilled workforce.
Speaker 1: Is that we're to decarbonize without getting what's left of
work in coastal communities.
Speaker 2: I think that's a good point. Whether or not there
will be total decarbonization, I think remains to be seen.
I think we may have to find a balance as
that we can only do so much and we're going
to have to accept that there will be, you know,
not full decarbonization. It might mean that we have to
offset to balance that out at the risk of you know,
damaging the fleet and what we really describe as fragile
fishing communities that are completely reliant on the sector without it,
without a fishing fleet. You know what somebody said to
me last week, what's more important, Wendy, keeping the economy
going of our community or decarbonizing the fleet for net zero?
What's more important? You know? We have to we have
to consider these fishing fleets. We have to consider where
they come from, their coastal community and if they didn't
have a fleet, if they were forced to decarbonize and
they didn't have a fishing fleet, then where's the work
going to come from and where's the money going to
come from for that community to survive. So there's a
bigger picture here apart from just decarbonizing for net zero.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate the way the depth that you're talking
to real people when they because what I felt just
exactly what you said there. Has the human side of
zero been forgotten?
Speaker 2: I think it potentially has. I think the government have
agreed to meet these targets, and do I feel that
it doesn't matter what gets in the way that they
want to meet those targets. I don't feel that the
implications have been considered as to what it means for
different parts of the country and different communities in those
parts like Scotland, for example, is very dominant on the
northeast coast for fishing. All of those you'll know, all
of those communities up that northeast coast, you know for Peterhead, Fraserburg,
that match of bamf Buckie, you know, they're all really
that is purely fishing. Bridlington is another one. You know,
Briddlington is very very high for the fishing sector with lobsters.
I've just been in Northern Ireland, are glass porta Vogie, Kilkeel.
Just without the fishing sector, you know that those communities
would be lost, They wouldn't have an industry, there would
not be another industry to take their place. So I
think communities and how this impacts them needs to be
looked at much much more than what it is being
looked at.
Speaker 1: Interesting, should the UK be leading the way as the
UK just keeping up or leading on sustainable seafood?
Speaker 2: The UK was the first to announce net zero globally
for twenty fifty in England and twenty forty five in Scotland,
and of course they want to be the world leader
in doing that. Not all countries are doing that. I'm
sure that you might be aware that the President of
America he wants to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and
those global commitments towards net zero, and this filters down
to and it's filtered down to the fishing sector. You know,
if large countries like the US are not going to
comply with the climate agenda and net zero, then where
does that leave us? As the UK? We are just
in their eyes, a small nation in a big world
trying to do big things. And if we don't have globally,
if we don't have everyone doing it, does that really
mean for us as a nation and for net zero?
That's the burning question, and that's that's what people feel.
Speaker 1: Are we setting any international standards worth following?
Speaker 2: Well, we are setting the standards, and the countries that
do want to become net zero, that have signed up
for the Paris Agreement, you know that they're following our lead.
So what we do will will you know, go globally
around the world. And if it doesn't work here, and
if we are unable to do it, then there will
obviously be implications that will follow around the world as well.
Speaker 1: I have to say that I feel that way myself
at teams. When do you when I hear a bit
it all and I think countries the size of America
and China and India not doing it, I mean, what
what impact is are we going to have?
Speaker 2: That's right, We're just very small when we compare ourselves
to those nations. And if we become net zero, you know,
we don't live in this little bubble where we can
where we can just keep what we've got and what
we're burning. You know, we're a world where it's a
global commitment, and if we don't have a global commitment,
I'm not entirely sure that it's that it's one hundred
percent possible.
Speaker 1: Is there a realistic chance of the UK becoming a
global leader and low carbon seafood.
Speaker 2: I think there's yes. I think there's a possibility that
we could do that. We're working very hard as a nation.
We've got lots of groups of and bodies of organizations
working incredibly hard, doing different trials, trying different things. They're
all working and they are actually starting scientists, and the
industry is coming together much more than it has done
before to try and make this work. So I have
no doubt that we are trying very hard to do that.
It just might take a little bit longer than the
targets that the nation has set to reach net zero.
Might just take us a little bit longer, particularly in
the seafood sector, because like agriculture, you know, the seafood
sector is hard to abate industry, and I just think
it might take a little bit longer. But I'm fairly
confident that we probably will get there one day with
technology and alternative fuels.
Speaker 1: It's just almost at times, just almost like a mainfield
out there.
Speaker 2: It is. It is like a minefield, and it's a
very fast evolving minefield. Things change very quickly. What we
might have had a year ago is now probably surpassed
and we've got something new. So yeah, it's a case
of always having to keep up front, always keeping up
to date with new information coming out, because it does.
It's changing rapidly and there are good things. It's getting better,
but yeah, it is a case of having to keep
up with things, to keep abreast of the situation at
the time.
Speaker 1: Is there other doing well elsewhere other countries.
Speaker 2: A lot of people look towards Norway and say that
Norway are streets ahead of us, years ahead of us.
Norway have got a lot of money that they can
do these sort of things. Aquaculture is actually doing very
well in the UK as well up in Scotland, the
aquaculture boats, but that's not the same as taking a
large vessel out into north Sea waters in the winter.
So they are doing very well. And yeah, everyone's looking
to Norway at the moment. But even Norway, despite the
fact that they've spent an awful lot of money and
they have got some very good projects underway, they still
feel that we're a little way off yet before we
can find a commercially viable product.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's any one thing that government could do,
say just say tomorrow, that would make a difference.
Speaker 2: I've asked this question as part of my interviews. What
could the government be doing to encourage the fishing sector,
in particular to maybe want to go towards net zero
and decarbonize. Some have said that policy could change, a
change in policy could change, which might help. Others have
said funding that we're where there is technology available or
something that can reduce or lower emissions that by putting
funding one up front would help. And if they do that,
then they would be more inclined to make changes because
you've got to remember, Jim, sometimes these can take quite
a bit of time, and they're not being compensated while
they're out of the water, so that's lost time, lost
earnings because they're not fishing. So I think a lot
of them would say if they fully funded up front
what we did have available, yes I would, so the
willpower was there to do it, And if their boat
was out of the water for quite a long time,
if they were compensated for that, because they're not compensated
while they're vessels out of the water for four or
five weeks getting an electric battery engine fitted.
Speaker 1: Have you one zero myth that needs to be scrapped?
Speaker 2: HM, one net zero myth that needs to be scrapped.
I think we have to be honest with ourselves and
ask if it's achievable, and I don't. I think we
know enough to be able to say that it is achievable.
So I think when we say we will be net
zero by twenty fifty, no, I don't think we will.
I don't think as a nation we will be. So
I would say that I think they have to look
at whether it's achievable before they say it's possible.
Speaker 1: With all that, can you give me one reason why
you're so optimistic?
Speaker 2: Optimistic? I actually I see both sides of the coin. Really,
I've met people in the industry who are optimistic and
others who are the opposite. The younger people, or the
younger fishermen, or the younger parts of the industry are
more optimistic than the older. We have an aging fleet.
Most of the fishermen and women that we have probably
won't be fishing when that date of net zero comes around.
They'll be gone by then, so they might think, why
should I do this when I'm not going to be
around long enough to get to claw back my money
or my payback time will be too long, So why
would I want to do that? So, yeah, I think
there are two sides of the industry. Yes, I want
to do it and I will and I'll use my money,
and others that will say no, absolutely not, I'm not
going to do it, and I don't want to change
what I'm doing. So I see it from both sides.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's the positive that I asked you. That's excellent.
What's one piece of data or kiss stady in your
research that shocked you or change your own assumptions.
Speaker 2: Well I had a different answer to this before I
went on my first research field trip, and I found
out that offshore wind guard vessels that are one hundred
HVEO fuel compliance or not using that fuel which is
clean fuel they're using, or the ones that I was
told about, are using marine diesel the same as our
fishing vessels because they will not pay the price of
HVO fuel and marine diesel is cheaper. And I was
shocked by that that we potentially have guard vessels linked
with offshore wind farms that are not complying with a
cleaner fuel and using the same as the fishing vessels,
and that doesn't sit very well with me.
Speaker 1: Very good. Finally, if we're honest, net zero is going
to hurt some people more than others. In your review,
who is most at risk of being squeezed out spactually
economically or politically, and what should be doing about it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, this was also find part of my research. It
was one of my questions and I asked the question
would decarbonizing the UK fishing fleet change the structure of
the fleet, i e. Would it reduce the fleet or
change the way vessels fished for less emissions for example,
And many of the responses were that yes, they would
see the fleet decreasing. Lots of fishers may decide to
just hang up their keys and say no, I'm done.
Larger companies will probably join together because of the costs involved,
and they'll just they they'll just they'll just come together.
But it's like it's highly likely to reduce the fleet
and it's highly likely to probably affect the small scale
more so that are linked with our west fragile coastal communities.
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely, so I can picture from what you're saying there.
The next thing we talk about, ensure small, Ensure local
is going to be back on the oars.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think they'll. They'll probably be the ones that
will suffer the most.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, unless we do have that funding to help them out.
They're going to need that funding.
Speaker 1: Okay. On a personal note, when they which book or
article do you think everyone and fishially should read this question?
I ask everybody.
Speaker 2: Now, yeah, I've actually got two, got them.
Speaker 1: You're allowed to.
Speaker 2: I'm allowed to. Okay. These are ones that I actually
really enjoyed. And one is called Vanishing Fish, Shifting Baselines
and the Future of Global Fisheries by Daniel Pawley okay.
And the other one is by Hillborn and Hillborn Ocean Recovery,
A Sustainable Future for Global Fisheries. Who's that, bay Ray
Hillborne and Hillburn.
Speaker 1: That's interesting, raised in a podcast with me.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, this is one of the books that I'm
going to recommend.
Speaker 1: That's excellent. And what if you are one word to
describe the future of British.
Speaker 2: Fisheries uncertainty Okay, yeah, uncertainty and challenging. If I had
a second.
Speaker 1: Word, But you're not say when it's always been like that.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think it has. I think for decades. I'm
hearing the same stories. We've never really made those changes
over the decades, and the fishing sector have. They probably
always feel that they're always up against it. They're always
left at the bottom of the chain, if you will.
They don't feel they get the same attention maybe as
other industries do. And I also think that they feel
undervalued and we shouldn't be undervaluing them because fish there's
a global food commodity that you know, we always have
had and we will always want to have for you know,
a growing population globally. Fish I think is really important
in that diet and it's a healthy diet, you know.
And I just don't think that the fishing sector is
or the fishing sector would tell me that in the
UK they feel undervalued. They feel undervalued for what they do.
Speaker 1: I think it's a nature of the industry. Do you
feel it's a nature of the industry. From the point
of view, there's not one single voice. It's all whether
it's a fishing boat at sea, or a guy on
the fish market or somebody repairing a boat. It's all
small businesses, one man or few men show and they
don't have the unity and when it comes to them
being attacked by the like of a NGO or something
like that, they're an easy target.
Speaker 2: Yes. Yeah, it would be good to see the different
strands of the seafood sector coming together as one rather
than being individual sectors really and then they would have
much more of a voice and be a stronger Yeah,
they'll be stronger together. I think it's we're seeing a
little bit of it with Fishing into the Future bringing
all of those fishermen and women around the country together
to different events around the UK and actually mixing with
the scientists and university academics to try and break those
barriers down and make them see that you know, the
better the better role really coming together and learn from
each other knowledge exchange. Yes, they'll have a stronger voice
by coming together and sharing their their problems and issues
to you know, and if it's it's all across the country,
then they may have a better chance of doing something
about it.
Speaker 1: I think nothing can be been at some of the
meetings with Fishing into the Future. It's fantastic to see
all sectors wroken in the room talking together.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would totally agree. I was at one in
York twenty twenty four, February twenty twenty four and it
was great. People from the southwest, from the northeast of England, Scotland,
whether it be lobster, whitefish, small scale, large scale, and
I really think what they're doing is excellent. And I
think that they continue to do that, that the fishing
sector will start to gel and come together even more so,
and I think that's really good for the future.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny. I was going to say, when
they asked you the question, you give the answer I am.
I'll be seventy six in a couple of months time.
When I was a kid in school, my father they
had their own all the boats were family on boards,
and so it does these brothers and that where the
run the boat. And I was just as typical fisherman's son.
All I ever wanted to do is be a fisherman.
My mother remember her saying to me, we never had
a problem with you when you were younger. He says,
we'd never please knocking at our door or any trouble
like that. The biggest problem we had with you is
to get you to go to school because you used
to say I don't need to go to school. I'm
going to be a fisherman. And then when I did
come to leave in school, I just wanted to go
on board the boat. My father says, no, no, no,
you're not going to see You're going to get a
trade and pick up a trade so that you have
something to fall back on because of the uncertainties in
the industry. Now I'm talking about six early sixties. And
so I did betrayed and butcher in and slaughter in
and then went back and went and the day I
was qualified, I left in the fishing industry. And so
that's that's what you say. Almost sixty years and it's
still uncertainties absolutely.
Speaker 2: And this is we've chatted about this in my research.
Fathers are actively encouraging their sons and daughters not to
go into the fishing sector, just not to do it
at all. They don't want them to follow them in.
And that's also a reason why we don't have younger
the younger generation coming in to the fleet with this
aging with this aging fleet that we've got. In terms
of the fishing personnel, you know, some parts, some parts
of the UK will say, you know, in ten years time,
we won't have a fishing fleet because everybody that we've
got will be retired and nobody else is following through.
And I'm told that's the same everywhere. It won't be
as extreme as there won't be a fishing fleet, but
some parts think that it will be very, very limited
compared to now because they're not encouraging their children to
follow through at all. And that's mainly because they say,
back in the day when they started, fishermen were fishermen.
They could go to sea to fish and they loved
it and that was all they had to do. But
now it's not like that. They have to be managers.
They've got lots of other different things that they have
to do, which has taken their enjoyment away from just fishing.
And they just equally say, you know, fishing is not
what it used to be, so we don't want our
children following into this industry. So that's sixty years on.
Speaker 1: That is so true. Ice often use that when I
talk to people now about fishermen. When I see a
fisherman and the peer just say, for a gamp last,
he's a businessman, part lawyer, part accountant, part business man.
Speaker 2: Yep, they're now managers. They have to manage everything themselves,
not just fish. And that's how they describe it's changed
over the years.
Speaker 1: One of the things that fascinates me from listening to
you today when they I seriously mean this, it's it's
the way you talk about this net zero and decarbonizing,
and you talk about how it's changing fast, and it's
almost like little previous before we had the same almost
the same thing with technology and computers were and how
quick it was changed, how technology was changing, and it's
almost like it's history repeating itself and now it's gone
from technology and we're in.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that's right. Yeah, I think it is, and
it's with us to stay for the foreseeable future. So
it's something that we have to deal with and try
and do the best we can.
Speaker 1: I think, well, credit to you as well with what
you're doing, because there's nothing in what you've said today
that I would say, oh see, I'm frightened about that,
or I don't want that to happen, or I don't
think there's anything we should fear.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think so. I think if technology was
available and when it becomes available, if the funding is there,
I think I think they will. They will deal with it,
and they'll do it. I mean, at the end of
the day, decarbonizing means that they're going to save money
in terms of fuel. So yep, it's for emissions and
for climate change. But they will ultimately be better off
because it won't be costing them as much as it
currently does. So there is a willingness to do it.
We just need that technology and that funding to be available,
and we're all sitting waiting for that to happen.
Speaker 1: Do you see it come an hour lafe time?
Speaker 2: Or when I did these interviews before I went off
on my field work, I asked the very question and
the amount of people, and actually on my field work,
the amount of people it was like a record that
said no, not in my lifetime. That's what they said.
When I said, can you ever see it happen? They went, no,
not in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: But there's that people in the in the industry or.
Speaker 2: In the industry, yeah, oh wow, in the industry, probably
around about my age. You know. Yes, they were saying no,
not in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: But if you see it's as fast changing as it does,
well maybe they'll be proved wrong to.
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean absolutely you could. I could talk to
different people. Somebody might say, oh, maybe in the next
five years. Somebody might say ten years, somebody might say fifteen,
somebody might say never. Yeah, it's it's we just have
to wait and see what's developing. And I think we've
got some very clever scientists sat there and engineers working
on different things, and I have no doubt we will
have something that will come along. I wouldn't like to
put a time frame on it. Personally, it's like you say,
it is fast changing. They don't necessarily see that so
or they may not know what's happening in the industry.
But I do see what's happening and read and listen
to what's happening. So I think it is possible. But yeah,
I wouldn't want to commit myself to a time limit.
But you're right, it is so fast changing, it could
be sooner than what most people think.
Speaker 1: Really interesting. Where can people and our listeners follow you on, Lane, Wendy.
Speaker 2: I'm on LinkedIn. Yeah, I'm on LinkedIn. That's where I
normally would be. Or I have a university email address.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And there's no easy effects for decarbonizing the UK
seafood supply chain. But we can't keep drifting either, so
I'll just say thanks for helping us set a clearer course.
Thank you for the day, it's been really fascinating.
Speaker 2: And thank you Jim for inviting me. I really enjoyed
that too.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you,