A Regional Seafood Platform in support of more ”responsible” seafood production


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • In a global economy, can market-based conservation schemes achieve sustainability goals in developing countries?
  • Harness consumer purchasing power, CSR of retailers and processors to promote stewardship of world’s fisheries>60% seafood exports originate in developing countries (SOFIA 2008)>90% aquaculture products originate from developing nations (FAO 2009)
  • WWF-Indonesia established Seafood Savers in 2009 to assist domestic producers meet increasing demand from buyers outside Indonesia for more sustainably produced seafoodTo be coordinating institution for businesses implementing initiatives to achieve more “responsible” fisheries.To facilitate information exchange among members on sustainability issues, including thru technical assistance.To be a place of encounter between producers and buyers of sustainable or “responsible” seafood productsTo support businesses aspiring to achieve MSC/ASC certification
  • Regional Platformshould use market access incentives to improve practices, wherever possible, through FIP- or AIP-style continuous improvement projects, while also developing other targeted engagements for situations where market access not feasible or appropriate.
  • Programmatic EngagementsProgrammatic Engagements make up the Regional Program’s “direct action” activities and focus on working directly with private sector actors to improve fishery practices. These engagements can be sub-divided into two categories:Single point interventions to eliminate worst practices?Don’t meet minimum criteriaNot candidates for market access driven continuous improvement programFocused on identifying and eliminating worst or specific practices without requiring continuous improvementsor granting market accessCan be entry-point to continuous improvement program. Continuous improvement programsRegional Platformshould use market access incentives to improve practices, wherever possible, through FIP- or AIP-style continuous improvement projects, while also developing other targeted engagements for situations where market access not feasible or appropriate.
  • This demands companies work toward gaining MSC certification using a step-wise approach and a formal process. The FIP approach can establish the framework for a company or group of stakeholders to enter into a milestone driven program that would ideally culminate in MSC certification, while at the same time rewarding them for being on a path of continual improvementA "ladder of progression" from illegal activity to achievement of credible certification. A Seafoood B2B could focus on delivering support to companies and communities moving up this ladder through connecting buyers and sellers. Other WWF Programs and affiliated activities book-end this approach.In terms of achieving MSC certification in the developing countries, fisheries face a number of potential barriers including: poor stock condition, destructive fishing, limited data, poor compliance & monitoring and enforcement. While there is currently limited demand for MSC product from within the region, international retailers are driving demand for and in some cases investing in MSC product.
  • The Regional Seafood Platformwill work within the existing landscape as much as possible to maximize efficiency and leverage prior efforts. Continuous improvement projects will take place within the existing rubric of FIPs or AIPsin that they will require continuous and time-bound improvement with failure to sustain such a progress leading to loss of market access.  Unique characteristics of developing country fisheries, will mean adapting and tailoring the FIP/AIP modelto serve targeted fisheries. The eventual consensus definition of a FIP or AIP may be restrictive in nature, requiring, for example, an MSC pre-assessment or a commitment to eventual MSC certification, which may discourage small-scale and developing country fishery participation. Similarly, it may be necessary to employ or develop low-cost assessment, implementation and verification methods to overcome cost barriers and these methods might not be endorsed by established FIP or AIP methodologies. Both of the scenarios above may preclude technical classification of these engagements as FIPs or AIPs, depending on their eventual consensus definition.
  • It’s a numbers game, focusing on fewer stakeholders but will provide the biggest impacts
  • The Regional Program should support the above engagements through a variety of activities including research, technical advisory, supply chain linking, advocacy, and through the development of a network of national level programs based in countries throughout the Coral TriangleDevelop / refine low-cost methodologies to engage resource & data poor fisheriesDefining minimum market access and communications criteria for: FIP like continuous improvement projectsOne-off interventions to eliminate worst practicesLocal supply research to understand leverage points in marketsAdvocacy at regional/international levelCapacity-building for NO & PO programsMarketing and communicationsKnowledge gathering and dissemination
  • Discussion will focus on barriers to progress and future support and capacity needs for SS in the context of CTGI/SFI issues.CTNI can facilitate robust, credible and equitable outcome
  • Discussion will focus on barriers to progress and future support and capacity needs for SS in the context of CTGI/SFI issues.Improvement plan with timespan > 6 years: WWF can offer support, but only without any market recognition – challenge of how to publicise these because retail partners want recognition
  • Distinguish between sustainable and “more responsible”Big budgets required to deliver FIPs & support programFew high quality FIPs or more “transitional” FIPs
  • A Regional Seafood Platform in support of more ”responsible” seafood production

    1. 1. A Regional SeafoodPlatform in support ofmore ”responsible”seafood productionDr Geoffrey MuldoonStrategy LeaderWWF Coral Triangle Network Initiative
    2. 2. Challenges for Asia-Pacific Countries• What does “sustainable” or “responsible” seafood look like in developing world context?• Local business want to make sustainability commitment, but what should that be in the absence of certified products?• What types of institution is needed to: o promote “responsible” seafood in absence of credible eco-labels? o Reward best practices (i.e. access, price)
    3. 3. Key Propositions1. Better address unique realities facing Asia-Pacific region in seafood production AND in sourcing more sustainable /responsible seafood at regional scale2. Regional platform needs to be consistent in delivering WWF network goals but also mindful of Developing World realities (i.e. bespoke solutions, tailored models)3. There is value in a regional platform solution to support national fisheries and supply-side businesses move toward sustainable/responsible production.4. Support for transitional or stepwise improvements in fisheries production requires long-term commitment
    4. 4. Seafood Savers Platform Steps1. Application 2. Due 4. MoU & Cooperation Diligence 3. Identification Agreement 7. Membership Authorization 6. Evaluation and Planning 5. Conditioning 8a. Fisheries/Aquaculture/Chain of 8b. Fisheries/Aquaculture/Chain of Custody Improvement Program Custody Improvement Program (FIP/AIP/CoCIP) - Intermediate (FIP/AIP/CoCIP) - Advance Emphasis on FIP/AIP path to MSC Certification
    5. 5. Need for “regional” approach? Regulatory interventions are General agreement that important, but limited - global economic levers can be powerfulmarkets can offer part of solution… tool to drive ecological change… Platform that can address the impact of  Leverage the intra and inter-regionalinternational trade as well nature of trade in parallel as domestic production Platform that can focus on specific transactions  Target producers and large buyers/ buyeramong key players in the groups for greatest potential impact ? value chain Platform that can play“convening/overseer role  “Convening” power is a compelling value for multiple regional proposition “stakeholders”
    6. 6. Need for “regional” approach? Regulatory interventions are General agreement that economic important, but limited - global levers can be a powerful tool tomarkets can offer part of solution… drive ecological change… Platform that can Leverage the intra and inter-regional nature of address the impact of trade in parallelinternational trade as well Country/region focus to build capability & scale as domestic production Support multinational network to achieve change Mobilize broader region- Target producers and large buyers/ buyer Platform that can focus wide industry commitment groups for greatest potential impact ? on specific transactionsamong key players in the to fisheries improvement Economies of scale among buyers and retailers value chain and provide additional “Sustainable seafood broker” linking qualified producers and buyers services and tools Platform that can play “Convening” a compelling value proposition“convening/overseer role Regional entity supporting or guiding NO/PO for multiple regional programs and partnerships “stakeholders” Leverage /investment at a regional scale
    7. 7. Regional Program ActivitiesThe Regional Program’s Activities can bedivided into two categories:1. Programmatic Engagements focused on engaging directly with supply chain actors to improve practices?2. Supporting Initiatives consisting of various initiatives taken up in support of these engagements and to create an enabling environment for improved practices.
    8. 8. Seafood Platform Program Engagement (1)Two (2) models of engagement to segmentand effectively target fishery improvements1. Single point interventions to eliminate worst practices? – Don’t meet minimum criteria – Not yet candidates for market access driven continuous improvement program2. Continuous improvement programs – Adopt existing FIP/AIP model – Tailored FIP to suit fishery and supply chain
    9. 9. Fishery/Aquaculture Improvement Projects• Stepwise approach to MSC certification• Develop seafood company commitment• Technical advice from fishery consultants• Partner with local stakeholders to develop and implement FIPChange on the water
    10. 10. Continual Improvement “Ladder of Progression” Credible Other WWF work Certification (MSC/ASC) Advocacy/Outreach Incentives/Rewards Seafood Illegal Activity Platform(IUU, Dynamite fishing) Other WWF work Years
    11. 11. Seafood Platform Program Engagement (2)• Engagement with developing country fisheries should support existing initiatives but may need to be tailored to drive improvements in targeted small-scale and developing country fisheries as needed.
    12. 12. Market Push-Pull Outcomes Trading &Supply Fishery Processors Retail ConsumersChain Companies Catcher/ Processors Brand & Stake supermarke Tuna Carrier Brandholders Owners owners t owners patronsNumber ~ 100,000 < 300 < 100 Millionsof Stake- members members members constituents holders IMPACT INFLUENCE IMPACT INTERVENTION IMPACT INFLUENCE IMPACT
    13. 13. Core Supporting Initiatives?1. Developing low-cost methods of evaluation, monitoring and implementation to engage resource and data-poor fisheries2. Defining minimum market access & communications criteria3. Supply chain research to understand market leverage points (producer demand, traceability, market power)4. Advocacy at regional/international level in tandem with NOs5. Capacity-building for NO & PO programs (e.g. Technical support, field-based training, staffing and secondments)6. Marketing and communications (e.g. linking supply chain actors, outreach,)7. Knowledge gathering and dissemination (information clearing house)
    14. 14. Core Supporting Initiatives? Country 1Regional Program • Technical/Capacity Building role Country 2 • Advocacy and policy role Country 3 • Communications and marketing role Country 4
    15. 15. Issues and Challenges (1)• Enthusiasm for “sustainable” product is opportunity for collaboration on viable, incremental industry strategies• Can current supply of sustainable seafood cannot meet demand (i.e. Sourcing)?• How can we improve our capability to deliver? – Demand for services outstrips supply – Lack of personnel, funds and technical expertise to develop and sustain partnerships – Develop system for verifying non-MSC-certified seafood under improvement is progressing
    16. 16. Issues and Challenges (2)• Align program activities with “sustainability” driven FIPs (measureable indicators, timelines) − Cannot undermine the minimum sustainability bar BUT need to recognize alternative pathway − Cannot become another casualty of green-washing?• Communication of “improvement” activities – When can market recognition be bestowed – Reward “improvement” activities (B2B, modified FIP) – Need to develop system for verifying non-MSC-certified seafood under improvement progressing• Lack of transparency/mislabelling through seafood supply chain eroding buyer and consumer confidence
    17. 17. Buyer Barriers Buyer group coalitions have political power to influence national fisheries management outcomes – Economic and practical dis-incentive to changing procurement policies based on available “sustainability criteria (e.g. guides)• Lack of interest/incentive – Supply chain blockages and/or distribution logistics – Perceived consumer resistance to “price” points (i.e. lack of W-T-P) – Need for economies of scale among buyers/retailers• Insufficient, unverified seafood product information – Lack of transparency/mislabelling through seafood supply chain eroding buyer and consumer confidence where price premiums involved