I am not sure this helps you, but I think the idea is as follows. Some retailers would like to be resposible for electrically stunning more shrimp, but have suppliers which are not willing to do so. Those retailers could buy stunning credits as a way of certifying they have been responsible for electrically stunning more shrimp by paying other suppliers to do so. These suppliers may initially be uncertain about whether those retailers will buy their stunning credits, so SWP commiting to buying their credits would make them more willing to electrically stun more shrimp.
Apologies for all the confusion hereāin terms of the idea Iām presenting in the post I think Vasco has done a really great job of summarising the idea above.
But I think the conversation above has helped me recognise a distinction that I donāt think Iād articulated particularly well in my post, which is that I see a difference between the application of credits for contexts like shrimp stunning, and the wider application of credits for animal welfare more broadly:
As a transition tool(as in shrimp stunning credits) - In the case of offsetting ābadā practices, credits arenāt intended to be very valuable, just a way to unblock logistical issues of transitioning a supply chain. Ultimately we want a situation where no-one is buying stunning credits because theyāve all directly transitioned their supply chains. (Again, I think Vasco actually does a great job of outlining my sense of how this would work without increasing shrimp production in his comment below).
As a tool to put a price on positive welfare (similar to Paul Christianoās Demand Offsetting proposalāthanks @Austin! I hadnāt read this article before) - In cases of trying to optimise for āgoodā practices (where an improvement could lead to net positive lives for farmed animals), I wanted to paint a picture of a world where credits could be used to create lasting mechanisms that financially incentivise these welfare improvements.
Also, Iāve just realised that Iāve referenced @Vasco Grilošøās comments a few times in this reply to help clarify my thinkingājust wanted to say that I really appreciate your help in articulating the points I wanted to make!
Also, Iāve just realised that Iāve referenced @Vasco Grilošøās comments a few times in this reply to help clarify my thinkingājust wanted to say that I really appreciate your help in articulating the points I wanted to make!
Hi Angelina and Austin,
I am not sure this helps you, but I think the idea is as follows. Some retailers would like to be resposible for electrically stunning more shrimp, but have suppliers which are not willing to do so. Those retailers could buy stunning credits as a way of certifying they have been responsible for electrically stunning more shrimp by paying other suppliers to do so. These suppliers may initially be uncertain about whether those retailers will buy their stunning credits, so SWP commiting to buying their credits would make them more willing to electrically stun more shrimp.
Hi Angelina, Austin, and Vasco :)
Apologies for all the confusion hereāin terms of the idea Iām presenting in the post I think Vasco has done a really great job of summarising the idea above.
But I think the conversation above has helped me recognise a distinction that I donāt think Iād articulated particularly well in my post, which is that I see a difference between the application of credits for contexts like shrimp stunning, and the wider application of credits for animal welfare more broadly:
As a transition tool (as in shrimp stunning credits) - In the case of offsetting ābadā practices, credits arenāt intended to be very valuable, just a way to unblock logistical issues of transitioning a supply chain. Ultimately we want a situation where no-one is buying stunning credits because theyāve all directly transitioned their supply chains. (Again, I think Vasco actually does a great job of outlining my sense of how this would work without increasing shrimp production in his comment below).
As a tool to put a price on positive welfare (similar to Paul Christianoās Demand Offsetting proposalāthanks @Austin! I hadnāt read this article before) - In cases of trying to optimise for āgoodā practices (where an improvement could lead to net positive lives for farmed animals), I wanted to paint a picture of a world where credits could be used to create lasting mechanisms that financially incentivise these welfare improvements.
Also, Iāve just realised that Iāve referenced @Vasco Grilošøās comments a few times in this reply to help clarify my thinkingājust wanted to say that I really appreciate your help in articulating the points I wanted to make!
Thanks, Aaron!