Whitefish Supplier CEO: Sustainability Update

Transcription

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership
Whitefish Supplier CEO:
Sustainability Update
Barcelona, October 11th 2011
Jim Cannon
CEO, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership
1
CEO Roundtable Goals
•
Give busy seafood executives a “one-stop shop” to:
1. Get a quick holistic overview of sustainability issues
in the sector.
2. Benchmark their fishery improvement efforts, and
exchange lessons learned
3. Discuss future partnership and cooperation
opportunities to improve key fisheries
2
Presentation Outline
SFP Overview
FIP Progress Overview
“State of the Whitefish”
Atlantic cod
Other whitefish fisheries
Lessons learned in organizing whitefish FIPs
How other seafood sectors support FIPs
Conclusion
3
About SFP
SFP is a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)
Founded 2006. Annual budget $5,000,000, foundation and
corporate support. 50+ people in 16 countries.
Created to educate and assist supply chain to improve
fisheries and aquaculture grow-out regions
4
SFP Strategic Objectives
1. Actionable information
2. Strengthen standards
3. Educate seafood buyers
Takes data, creates
information
Adds intelligence
4. Educate opinion makers
5. Educate producers and suppliers
6. Educate investors
Changes in the
water
7. Organizational effectiveness
Improves overall
efficiency and
effectiveness
5
SFP Corporate Relationships
•
McDonald's
•
Retailers
•
North America: Walmart, Publix, Sobeys, Meijer, BJ’s Wholesale,
Giant Eagle, Aldi, Raleys, Wegmans, Price Chopper
•
Europe: Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda
•
Australia: Woolworth’s
International Suppliers
•
•
•
Aquastar, Biomar, Espersen, Ewos, Findus, High Liner Foods,
Multiexport, Phillips Foods, Skretting, Slade Gorton, and ZF America
Many other catchers, farmers, and local processors
participate in individual FIPs and AIPs.
6
Other NGO - Corporate Relationships
7
Measuring FIP Progress
Public Activity (FIP Stage 3):
Agreed a FIP work plan with milestones
Implementation of work plan started (e.g., letters sent to regulators)
Evidence of Impact (FIP Stage 4):
Change in fishing practices and/or policies
E.g., use of low-impact fishing gears, area restrictions, or catch or effort
controls.
Evidence of Outcomes (FIP Stage 5):
Actual physical change in the water (e.g., reduction in fishing mortality,
by-catch, habitat impact; increase in target biomass or population size of
an impacted endangered species)
Verified by an independent third party (e.g., government report on stock
status)
8
Whitefish in FIPs / MSC
9
Whitefish in FIPs / MSC
Whitefish
fisheries with
SFP FIP and yet
to engage with
MSC (15%)
Whitefish
fisheries with
MSC
engagement
and nothing to
do with SFP
(38%)
Whitefish
fisheries with no
SFP FIP and no
MSC
engagement
(5%)
Whitefish
fisheries with
MSC as a result
of SFP FIP (42%)
10
FishSource Scores
•
•
Keeping fishing mortality under control requires management
quality, indicated by:
–
Precautionary management system (FishSource Score 1)
–
Managers following scientific advice when setting quotas
(FishSource Score 2)
–
Catchers complying with quotas (FishSource Score 3)
Results “in the water” are:
–
Healthy stock, above target levels (FishSource Score 4)
–
Fishing mortality on target, ensuring future health of stock
(FishSource Score 5)
11
FishSource Scores: Colors
•
FishSource scores are neutral 0-10 rankings – individual FishSource users
decide which score is acceptable to them.
•
For this presentation, we have applied “color coding” in line with
approaches used by ICES / NMFS / FAO / MSC:
•
•
Green – at or above biomass target level, below fishing mortality target, above
MSC 80 (SFP estimate). FishSource Score equal to or above 8.
•
Yellow – between limit and target reference points, between MSC 60 and 80
(SFP estimate). FishSource Score between 6 and 8.
•
Red – below biomass lower limit level, above fishing mortality upper limit,
below MSC 60 (SFP estimate). FishSource Score below 6.
To be clear – these color codes are not SFP or FishSource own
definitions of sustainability
12
Maps of FishSource Scores
13
Atlantic Cod status by volume
Total catch split by relative biomass
FishSource score (2011)
10.9%
1.3%
≥8
[6 – 8]
Total catch split by fishing mortality
10.6%
1.6%
≥8
[6 – 8]
<6
<6
87.8%
87.8%
The share of current global cod supply now green rated on stock health grew
from 80% in 2010 to 88% in 2011.
The share of global supply green rated for precautionary low levels of fishing
mortality increased dramatically from 61% in 2010, to 88% in 2011.
The share red-rated on either measure dropped from over 15% to 11%
14
Atlantic Cod “climbers”
Management Quality scores
Fishery name
Atlantic cod - Barents Sea
Atlantic cod - Icelandic
Atlantic cod - Baltic sea western
Atlantic cod - Baltic sea eastern
Atlantic cod - Gulf of Maine
Atlantic cod - St. Pierre Bank
Stock status scores
Scientific
advice
Managers
Fishers
Relative
Fishing
precautionary compliance compliance Biomass Mortality
8.0
10
9.9
10
9.1
≥8
10
8.1
10
8.0
≥8
10
10
9.1
8.1
≥8
9.9
10
≥8
8.7
≥6
10
10
6.3
6.9
<6
7.6
10
≥6
≥6
4 stocks now exceed MSC unconditional requirements on 5 key
management and stock status indicators (as measured by FishSource).
Iceland introduces formal target reference points.
Gulf of Maine stock climbs above lower limits.
St. Pierre Bank: status unchanged. FIP aims to introduce biomass targets
and a harvest control rule. Scientific advice score should improve.
15
Atlantic Cod “bottom of the league”
Fishery name
Atlantic cod - Newfoundland
Atlantic cod - N Scotian Shelf
Atlantic cod - N Labrador
Atlantic cod - North Sea
Atlantic cod - W of Scotland
Atlantic cod - Norwegian coastal
Atlantic cod - S Scotian Shelf, Bay of Fundy
Atlantic cod - S Gulf of St. Lawrence
Atlantic cod - Georges Bank
Atlantic cod - S Grand Bank
Atlantic cod - N Gulf of St. Lawrence
Stock status scores
Scientific
advice
Managers Fishers
Relative
Fishing
precautionary compliance compliance Biomass
Mortality
<6
10
<6
<6
≥6
<6
10
≥8
<6
<6
<6
10
10
< 6 N/A
3.2
10
0
4.7
5.2
1.8
0
10
3.7
3.8
0.5
0
8.5
2.8
2.5
3.2
0
10
2.2
5.2
<6
10
10
2.1
<6
≥6
10
10
1.4
5.4
≥6
10
0
1.3
<6
3.2
10
10
0.8
5.2
Majority of cod stocks by number are still depleted
Newfoundland (2J3KL): Still at historically low levels, but some early signs of
rebuilding. Ensure recovery continues and leads back to full health. Requires
government support to catch sector to maintain offshore moratorium / keep F
low, until SSB recovers or strong year classes recruit to the fishery.
Same applies to other historically smaller Canadian and US stocks
16
Cod Improvement Priorities
SFP has convened a single roundtable of European and North
American suppliers to engage and support multiple US and
Canadian cod FIPs being run by local producers.
Roundtable met in Boston, discussed the following conditions
for resuming sourcing from reopening fisheries:
Biomass should be above levels needed for healthy
breeding and new recruitment
Maybe, if a huge year-class is confirmed, fishery can
responsibly reopen at a lower biomass level
If a fishery reopens before rebuilding above minimum levels,
avoid sourcing until rebuilding is more advanced
17
Biomass and Limits
Fishery name
Atlantic cod - Georges Bank
(NAFO 5Z)
Atlantic cod - Gulf of Maine
Atlantic cod - N Gulf of St.
Lawrence (NAFO 3Pn, 4RS) [
Atlantic cod - N Labrador
(NAFO 2G, H)
Atlantic cod - N Scotian Shelf
(NAFO 4Vs, W)
Atlantic cod - Newfoundland
(NAFO 2J, 3KL)
Atlantic cod - S Grand Bank
(NAFO 3N, O)
Atlantic cod - S Gulf of St.
Lawrence (NAFO 4T, Vn)
Atlantic cod - S Scotian Shelf
and Bay of Fundy (NAFO 4X,
5Yb)
Atlantic cod - St. Pierre Bank
(NAFO 3Ps)
Biomass
estimate
(in 1000
tonnes)
Year
Biomass Limit
Reference
Point (in 1000
tonnes)
Limit Reference Point:
Official or Unofficial?
17.67
2007
74.04
33.88
2007
29.12
Unofficial, half of Btarget
(SFP)
Unofficial, half of Btarget
(SFP)
32
2009
140
Official
0.78
2006
None
13.08
2007
RK50=23.94,
BH50=33.67
29
2007
>300
NA
Unofficial (based on a qcorrected Research
Vessel data - FS)
Unofficial (Rivard and
Rice 2003)
12.73
2010
60
Official
28.24
2009
80
Official
2008
25, also set as
target
Official
2010
13 and 36, set
as Brecovery
Official
9
Ratio of
1.07 above
limit
18
Other Whitefish status by volume
Total catch split by fishing mortality
Total catch split by relative biomass
3%
≥8
≥8
[6 – 8]
15%
[6 – 8]
<6
<6
13%
NA
16%
51%
34%
68%
The share of current global whitefish supply now green rated on stock health
grew from 38% in 2010 to 51% in 2011.
The share of global supply green rated for precautionary low levels of fishing
mortality stayed flat: 66% in 2010 and 68% in 2011.
The share red-rated on stock stayed the same.
19
Other Whitefish “climbers”
Fishery name
Alaska pollock - Sea of Okhotsk
Haddock - Barents Sea
North Pacific hake
Hoki - New Zealand Eastern
Haddock - North Sea
Shallow-water Cape hake - South African stock
Haddock - S Scotian Shelf and Bay of Fundy
Hoki - New Zealand Western
Saithe - Barents Sea
Haddock - Georges Bank
Saithe - Icelandic
New Zealand Southern blue whiting - Campbell Island Rise
Haddock - Gulf of Maine
Alaska pollock - E Bering Sea
Alaska pollock - Aleutian Islands
Deep-water Cape hake - South African stock
Alaska pollock - Japanese Pacific
Haddock - Icelandic
New Zealand Southern blue whiting - Bounty platform
Stock status scores
Scientific advice Managers
Fishers
Relative
precautionary
compliance
compliance
Biomass
10
9.1
10
≥8
10
9.6
8.0
10
10
≥8
10
10
8.7
10
9.1
≥8
10
10
10
10
10
≥8
10
10
7.5
10
10
7.0
10
10
6.0
6.0
8.7
≥6
10
10
≥6
10
10
8.4
10
10
10
10
10
≥8
10
9.9
≥6
6.7
10
≥6
10
7.5
≥6
10
10
Fishing
Mortality
10
10
10
10
10
10
9.2
8.6
10
10
8.4
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.3
6.2
≥6
≥6
≥6
8.3
9.1
9.4
10
8.9
≥8
10
9.5
8.2
9.4
6.7
≥8
9.7
10
10
≥6
7.3
6.7
≥6
Russian pollock FIP: good catcher and supply chain engagement with regulators
North Pacific hake biomass rebuilt.
Icelandic saithe and haddock score better after reference points introduced.
Japan pollock scores better: managers follow scientific advice more closely.
20
Other Whitefish “league bottom”
Fishery name
Saithe - Faroese
Southern blue whiting - Chilean
Saithe - North Sea
Hoki - Argentine
Peruvian hake
Deep-water Cape hake - Namibian
Hoki - Chilean
Haddock - Faroese
Southern hake - Pacific Patagonian
South Pacific hake - Chilean
Argentine hake - South of 41ºS
Argentine hake - North of 41ºS
Stock status scores
Scientific advice Managers
Fishers
Relative
precautionary
compliance
compliance
Biomass
<6
<6
≥6
0
10
≥6
8.7
10
10
≥6
4.3
10
0
10
10
N/A
7.1
10
<6
0
10
<6
0
0
0.3
9.3
7.8
<6
3.4
10
3.7
7.5
<6
1.5
0
<6
Fishing
Mortality
10
8.5
6.6
≥6
≥6
< 6 N/A
<6
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.4
2.6
6.6
≥6
4.1
≥6
0.4
8.4
<6
2.3
9.1
5.7
3.5
Faroese saithe, Chilean SBW: minor improvements required in management.
N Sea saithe, Peru hake: require urgent reductions in F.
Namibia: lack of public data / recent assessments of great concern.
Chile southern hake, South Pacific hake; declining stocks.
Argentine hake: still in serious trouble and showing little improvement.
21
Whitefish biomass trends 2000-2011
Total biomass (47 main stocks, with some “guestimates” for 2011)
22
Main Conclusion
Outlook for stocks and raw-material supply is
positive.
Progress on environmental impacts is slower.
23
Other Whitefish Improvement Priorities
Environmental impacts still an issue, even in some of the best
fisheries:
Barents Sea cod: jury still out on whether benthic habitat impacts from
bottom trawl fishing will be adequately addressed. Continued lack of
progress will become an issue for retaining MSC certificate.
Benthic impacts require systematic structured response.
SFP has developed best-practices guidance, referencing the
US and New Zealand.
24
Benthic Protection Recommendations (1)
Typical Required Improvement Actions
Publish available information and maps of benthic habitat and
biodiversity.
Protect pristine ‘wilderness areas’.
Protection other critical habitats as necessary, that are currently fished or
threatened by fishing.
Change gear to lower impact methods / technologies.
Conservation measures must be done through participatory processes:
Convene representative stakeholders in dialog and negotiation over
benthic protection measures.
Statements of support from all parties to continue open and
constructive dialog.
25
Benthic Protection Recommendations (2)
SFP Recommendations to Seafood Supply Chain:
Bring representative stakeholders to the table from the
beginning.
Establish objectives that balance protection with a
sustainable commercial fishery, and set measurable targets
for protection.
Conduct a gap analysis and select sites using the best
available information.
Implement clear regulations and boundaries in a timely
manner.
Commit to an iterative process that includes data collection,
evaluation, and adaptive management.
26
Running FIPs: Lessons / Issues
The FIP structure that put SFP (or other NGOs) in the middle of
FIPs as “implementers” works, but we feel better options exist
to take FIPs to scale across fisheries worldwide.
Last year we said:
CEOs and sustainability leaders in international suppliers need to lead
FIPs, and take the case for improvement forward to catchers and
regulators.
SFP cannot do this representation for you, but we can guide and provide
technical advice, and report progress to customers.
Keep FIP participation broad. Good understanding with catcher / local
processor associations is critical.
The FIP goals, work plans and achievements need to be public.
27
Other Seafood Sectors
SFP is helping organize other seafood sectors to support FIPs
Crab
Small pelagics
Others being formed
Referred to as Sustainable Seafood Supplier Roundtables
(SSSRs)
Other groups using interesting approaches
Tuna: ISSF
28
Crab SSSR
Focus on Asian blue swimming crab
US Crab Council formed under National Fisheries Institute (NFI)
Championed by Steve Phillips/Phillips Seafood
Local exporter associations established in Indonesia,
Philippines, etc.
These associations run the FIPs, with funding from the US
importers organized through the US Crab Council
Commitment by US Crab Council members to not accept
product from crabs under a minimum size
SFP advises US Crab Council and exporter associations.
29
Small Pelagics SSSR
Producers and users of fishmeal and fish oil
Annual Summit (Brussels ESE), and Nested Working Groups
SFP European Fishmeal and Oil Users Group
Sponsor SFP to support FishSource and Annual League Table
Oversight of 4 NE Atlantic Reduction FIPs
Track and participate in global reduction FIPs
Shrimp Sustainable Fishmeal Roundtable
Global buyers / regional producers
Co-operation with IFFO re Improvers Scheme
30
Recommendations for Organizing Whitefish FIPs (1)
Primary Consideration: FIPs must be “Fit for Purpose”.
Control documents to address IUU would have been unlikely in
the Barents Sea cod fishery, if catchers had been included in
the initial decision-making.
Some FIPs early on required retailer interest to convene their
suppliers and initiate FIP activities.
But ultimately FIPs involve changing local regulations and
fishing practices, and these efforts are best lead by catchers
and local processors.
Funding NGOs to run FIPs doesn’t significantly alter the
political dynamics around fisheries management in most
countries: direct engagement by industry is essential.
31
The ultimate aim in any individual FIP is that catchers
and local processors should lead them, with – where
necessary – strong support, encouragement and
demands from suppliers.
However, FIP implementation capacity is an issue, both in
convening and aligning industry, and advice on technical
solutions.
SFP is exploring setting up a semi-independent group within SFP to
help fill this gap.
Trade associations (e.g. NFI, AIPCE, FDF) can be positioned
to act as conveners / facilitators and information resources.
32
From an international supplier perspective, for efficiency
gains, similar FIPs can be grouped and their progress
reviewed at all together by a roundtable of suppliers.
This is essential to overcome capacity issues inside
international suppliers.
Examples:
SFP’s Roundtable in NE Atlantic small pelagics
SFP’s Roundtable on US and Canadian cod
The structure of the US crab council
33
Funding mechanisms need to be agreed, either:
Individual producer associations add a sustainability “charge” to pricing to
raise funds for their FIP (analogous to the MSC certification model, and
many FIPs).
Importer associations place a small levy on imports to create a fund to
finance relevant FIPs worldwide (the US Crab Council model).
Note, sponsorship model used by SFP in Russian pollock and some other
FIPs has not been scalable.
Agree common principles for effective industry leadership of FIPs:
FIPs require competitors to work together in common cause; often difficult!
Use existing seafood / fisheries association models where effective
cooperation already exists.
Single companies are often required to be leaders in FIPs, but they need to
take care to bring their competitors along with them.
34
SFP FIP Role Changes
5 years ago SFP set out to develop pilot FIPs, to serve as test-beds and
prove the concept.
Now our role in FIPs is shifting to:
Initiate environmentally critical FIPs (do analyses, convene companies,
set up systems), then transfer leadership to companies and drop
ourselves back to advisory / evaluator role.
Develop improvement recommendations for retailers for all FIPs in
fisheries they are concerned about.
Build capacity of supply chain (and other stakeholders) to implement their
own FIPs, through training, introducing like-minded companies to one
another, development of legal templates etc.
Develop public FIP standards and reporting templates.
Running roundtables in support of multiple FIPs
Exploring options for a semi-independent group within SFP to fulfill a
more traditional FIP technical support role.
35
Thank you
36

Whitefish Supplier CEO: Sustainability Update

Transcription

Similar documents

DAYBROOK FISHERIES, INC.

Whitefish Supplier CEO: Sustainability Update

R9008928123 Raaco Dulapuri pentru depozit 928-123

Site Partner Supervision - Christin Marshall, AmeriCorps Cape Cod

Barnstable County AmeriCorps Cape Cod FireCorps

Lira presentation

Finfish - Department of Agriculture

Carleton S-D - Collegiate Quizbowl Packet Archive

Insider May 19, 2008 draft 5.p65

SCHOOL FEEDING PROGRAMME (SFP) NATIONAL BOARD OF