1. Market mechanisms for fisheries improvement Jim Cannon CEO, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP)‏ Presenting to RFE Salmon Meeting Portland, Oregon November 2007 Sustainable Fisheries Partnership

2. SFP status and partners Status: NGO founded 2006 (US 501c3 status)‏ ‏ Funding: foundations, corporate partners Advise: McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Young's Seafood, Espersen and other buyers, suppliers, catchers, and farmers. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership

3. SFP Mission and Purpose Mission: “to maintain healthy ocean and aquatic ecosystems, enhance fishing and fish-farming livelihoods and secure food supplies” Purpose: “improve access to information to guide responsible seafood sourcing, and enhance the ability of seafood companies and partners to improve fish-farming and capture fisheries” Sustainable Fisheries Partnership

4. SFP Programs Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Staff: 20, with expertise in fisheries management, fish farming and environmental protection Locations: US, EU, Australia, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines, Russia, Chile, Argentina Programs: –Information provision: FishSource.org –Fishery Improvement Partnerships (FIPs)‏ –Aquaculture Improvement Partnerships (AIPs)‏ –Advice to major seafood buyers and suppliers

5. Presentation Overview Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Mechanisms for change Fisheries Improvement Partnerships (FIPs) overview Russian pollock FIP overview Key lessons learned

6. Mechanisms for Change Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Goal: improve the fishery: Change policies 1 Direct lobbying/engaging officials/politicians 2 Public awareness campaigns (range in tone, e.g., activist, academic, aquarium)‏ 3 Lawsuits 4 Engage companies to get them to exert pressure (range in tone, from activist to e.g., SFP Fisheries Improvement Partnerships)‏ 5 Consumer demand-based models – eco-labels, cards etc. Change private practices 1 Lawsuits 2 Engage companies to get them to demand change (range in tone, from activist to e.g., SFP Fisheries Improvement Partnerships)‏ 3 Consumer demand-based models – eco-labels, cards etc.

7. Market Mechanisms Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Consumer-demand based e.g., eco-labels (MSC), seafood cards Engaging companies –Distinguish retailers from “consumer facing brands” from suppliers from producers –Various “activist” approaches –SFP's Fisheries Improvement Partnerships

8. FIPs overview Sustainable Fisheries Partnership prepare fishery profile on FishSource optional: carry out MSC pre-assessment best way to determine what is needed for MSC label Initiates work with best long-term way to meet key retailer/market demands if problems need to be fixed, partner with SFP to run a FIP agree on action plan to fix the problems, and identify annual improvement milestones deliver on improvement milestones partner with SFP to report progress to retailers

9. Wal-Mart Initiative source only from MSC certified fisheries by 2009-11 Sustainable Fisheries Partnership

10. Russian pollock Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Western pollock resource Gulf of Olyutorski (East Kamchatka Fishing Zone)‏ 2 – Karaginsk 3 – Petropavlovsk - Kommandor Sea of Okhotsk pollock resource (Sea of Okhotsk Fishing Zone)‏ 4 – North Okhotsk 5 – West Kamchatka 6 – Kamchatka – Kuril 7 – East Sakhalin Northern pollock resource Cape Navarin (Western Bering Sea Fishing Zone)‏ 1 – West Bering Sea

11. Russian pollock Sustainable Fisheries Partnership

12. Russian pollock Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Catches down ~ 70% in last ten years Three main resources: “Northern West Bering” (Navarin), “Western West” (Olyutorski) and the Sea of Okhotsk Okhotsk: biomass down 70% from mid-90s levels Northern: older official assessments showed biomass had declined during the late 1990s / early 2000s by up to 50% from a low base. Recent assessments estimate the biomass has increased. Western: biomass very low. No direct fishery (by- catch quota only)‏ Significant illegal fishing and smuggling reported Drastic declines in Steller Sea Lion

13. Russian pollock timeline 1 Sustainable Fisheries Partnership April 2006 – “SFP” chairs Brussels meeting –Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Unilever (Birdseye), Royal Greenland, FroSTA –BAMR, Pacific Andes –4 recommendations: (1) form association to represent interests; (2) lobby for improvements; (3) verify legality; (4) seek MSC pre- assessment May 2006 – Russian companies met to discussion recommendations August 2006 – Pollock Catchers Association forms –to protect fish resources and their habitat, to recommend Russian government and management on improving the fishery, etc.

14. Russian pollock timeline 2 Sustainable Fisheries Partnership August 2006 – SFP/WWF meetings with key companies at IFC, Vladivostok December 2006 / January 2007 – Pollock Catcher Association considers MSC pre- assessment. SFP/WWF present case. March 2007 – contract signed with certifier April 2007 – SFP hosts 2 nd FIP meeting with buyers and producers at Brussels show –Much more positive tone, dialog both ways, with Russian company leading debate

15. Russian pollock timeline 3 Sustainable Fisheries Partnership June – August 2007 – PCA – MSC CB meetings September 2007 – SFP presents at 2 nd International Fishery Congress PCA announced: 4.5% roe recovery, A and B seasons Legal verification pilot project developed Discussion of Russian company being lead corporate partner in FIP

16. Russian pollock FIP lessons Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Progress relies on becoming seen as a trusted “insider” Gaining trust and getting productive dialog takes a lot of time Be well informed: –Recognise and understand different approaches but high quality of Russian fisheries/marine science –Understand laws, enforcement systems, recognise known problems etc. Partnership needed between companies through the supply chain –Build leverage through market share represented, but only helps with getting attention of producers Leadership by local senior company staff is essential (“ambassadors to TINRO, government etc.”)‏ Committed staff in leading companies also essential (competing priorities, capacity limitations, avoid “lost in translation” problems)‏ Pace of change externally limited