{"id":40090195,"date":"2021-07-26T11:30:55","date_gmt":"2021-07-26T06:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/china-dialogue-ocean-staging.darkbluehq.com\/uncategorized\/17966-will-seafood-corporations-act-as-ocean-stewards\/"},"modified":"2022-02-10T23:02:24","modified_gmt":"2022-02-10T17:32:24","slug":"17966-will-seafood-corporations-act-as-ocean-stewards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/ocean\/17966-will-seafood-corporations-act-as-ocean-stewards\/","title":{"rendered":"Will seafood corporations act as ocean stewards?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Communities and small-scale producers around the world have long achieved resilience and self-sufficiency<\/a> through stewardship<\/a>: knowledge and care shaped by an intimate understanding of their unique surroundings, and agency to act. Talun-kebun<\/em><\/a> in Indonesia; maeulsoop<\/em><\/a> in Korea; kaitiakitanga<\/em><\/a> in New Zealand; satoyama<\/em><\/a> in Japan \u2013 these and dozens of other examples of stewardship have emerged across generations, and continue to inspire and shape action and ethics today.<\/p>\n

But our current era, the Anthropocene<\/a>, is one of hyper-connectivity, with truly global movement of goods, knowledge and people. Even the most remote communities are rapidly becoming linked into international supply chains and trade networks. What does stewardship mean in the context of globally active corporations? In many ways, transnational companies seem the antithesis of stewards: motivated by growth, shareholder dividends and short-term decision-making.<\/p>\n

Yet growth often depends on frontiers and untapped resources, and some industries are already bumping up against planetary boundaries. In 2017, for instance, the FAO reported<\/a> that only around 6% of fish stocks were \u201cunderfished\u201d, while global fisheries catches have remained largely stagnant for the past 30 years.
\n

<\/p>\n
\"\"
The use of traditional handlines to fish for mackerel in Cornwall helps keep stocks healthy (Image: Edward Parker \/ Alamy)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

<\/div><\/p>\n

Transnational corporations are also connected to diverse geographies, cultures and norms. In the seafood industry, shifting norms have elevated<\/a> many issues, from labour and human rights, to gender equality and animal welfare. At the World Economic Forum in 2019, Jim Leape<\/a> noted: \u201cIf your seafood is caught by slaves, it doesn\u2019t matter if it\u2019s sustainable.\u201d<\/p>\n

So what is the recent history of an industry encountering biosphere limits and navigating a changing world of norms? Together with colleagues from academia, civil society and the private sector, we studied the role of stewardship in the seafood industry, publishing our findings<\/a> this June in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science.<\/p>\n

From boycotts to \u2018buycotts\u2019<\/h2>\n

We found the seafood industry to be inextricably linked and shaped by interactions with NGOs, academia, policymakers and other industry actors. High-profile NGO campaigns in the 1970s, for instance, focused on bycatch of charismatic species like dolphins in tuna fisheries, resulting in seafood boycotts and swift corporate, and eventually regulatory, responses.<\/p>\n

Milestones in seafood boycotts and labelling<\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n

\"\"
a.<\/strong> Dolphin-safe tuna labels (1990 onwards) | b.<\/strong> Give Swordfish a Break campaign poster (1997) | c.<\/strong> Bycatch deposited outside a UK supermarket during Greenpeace's \u201cRecipe for Disaster\u201d campaign (2005) (Images a & b: Blasiak et al. 2021<\/a>, Image c \u00a9 John Cobb \/ Greenpeace)<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Boycotts quickly led to \u201cbuycotts\u201d, as focus expanded beyond stopping the consumption of certain types of seafood to encouraging the consumption of sustainably produced varieties. The primary vehicle for such efforts has been certifications and ecolabels, with the Marine Stewardship Council<\/a> (MSC) and Aquaculture Stewardship Council<\/a> certifications among the most prominent.<\/p>\n

Ecolabels are not one-size-fits all. More than 120 have been established since the 1990s, with varying levels of focus on social and environmental standards, and adapted to local or national settings. This proliferation can create confusion among consumers and retailers. It resulted in the establishment of the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative<\/a> (GSSI), which serves as a benchmark of certifications.<\/p>\n

Marine Ecolabel Japan<\/a> (MEL), for instance, was originally established in 2007 as a domestic labelling system. Traditionally a fish-consuming country with a high degree of trust and dependence on its local, small-scale fishers, Japan saw little need for an international labelling scheme. But growing market connections have caused a shift, pushing MEL to modify its standard and garner GSSI recognition in 2019.<\/p>\n

The growing role of \u2018green clubs\u2019<\/h2>\n

More recently, green clubs \u2013 voluntary alliances of corporate actors committed to environmental or social goals that are not mandated by law \u2013 have become increasingly prominent in the seafood industry. These create a new potential for collaboration on sustainability. One such example is the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators<\/a> (COLTO) and its forerunner ISOFISH<\/a>, which brought together industry and other actors to address rampant illegality in the toothfish fishery. In 1997, around half of catch volumes were illegally caught. Transparency, cooperation and joint monitoring exercises were key to turning this around.
\n


\n