one question: as i understand it, corporate advocacy for more well-known farmed animals (cattle, pigs, chicken) relies in part on favourable (from the advocate’s point of view) public opinion. if a producer or distributor is not open to change on any of the advocate’s asks, the advocate can gain leverage by drumming up grassroots campaigns against the producer/distributor. i expect that to be far harder with shrimp than with cattle, pigs and chicken. so i’m curious, what do you do if producers/distributors aren’t willing to listen to you because they don’t feel you present enough of a pr/legal/whatever threat?
another question: how concentrated is production and distribution of shrimp? are there e.g. few huge importers in the eu, or is it scattered? are there few huge farmers in south-east asia, or many small ones?
Advocacy: You’re absolutely right, that’s been our impressions of corporate advocacy work too and we’re currently not expecting to drum up grassroots campaigns, or do any significant work on public awareness. Our expectation as it stands is that we can frame the benefits of shrimp welfare as a lever for sustainability. The Seafood Task Force has managed to make shrimp supply chain improvements driven by retail largely without the buy-in of consumers [1]. In addition, we hope to enable corporations to be leaders in this area, as consumer awareness of aquatic welfare increases (i.e. due to Seaspiracy etc.).
Production: It’s pretty concentrated on a country level in terms of distribution [2]. In South-East Asia there are often many smaller farmers, but they work with agents who deliver the shrimps to a centralised processing plant for export [3]. Our understanding of importing at a company level is that there are a few key importers that dominate the market [4].
Our expectation as it stands is that we can frame the benefits of shrimp welfare as a lever for sustainability
Do sustainability interventions reliably align with welfare? e.g. can shrimps still die from asphyxiation/poisoning in this order of magnitude when the conditions are “externally sustainable”? Is there a risk of some practices (like bigger density) being more sustainable but worse for welfare?
There are lots of overlaps between welfare and sustainability, with a great overview provided by the Aquatic Life Institute [1] (we’re hoping to publish a shrimp-focused look at the overlap of sustainability and welfare on our website soon!)
Our main concern is with super-intensive systems, in which many of these welfare issues are managed very well, but there are very high stocking densities. In less intensive systems, lower stocking densities can reduce stress and susceptibility to diseases, so we have a pretty good case for asking that they’re reduced as part of our Ask. But in high-intensive systems, water quality and risk of disease are managed well, so stocking densities can be very high—and the overlap of welfare and sustainability falls down. In this case, we’re hoping that being able to provide the farmers with access to a higher-welfare market becomes our main lever for justifying an ask to reduce stocking densities.
In this case, we’re hoping that being able to provide the farmers with access to a higher-welfare market becomes our main lever
So as I understand it, public awareness may still be a limiting factor eventually, at least regarding high intensity systems, as it will be needed to back your asks from manufacturers that will no longer align with their sustainability concerns?
And yes that’s true, each stakeholder in the shrimp supply chain is usually driven by the demands of the next link (i.e. farmer—processor—importer—distributor—consumer). So when it comes down to it, often the distributor (retailer/restaurant etc.) can only make a change if they have reason to believe that the public is demanding change...
Though we are anticipating that we can make lots of progress before we reach public awareness as our limiting factor (the scale is just so huge!).
And we expect that in the meantime, progress towards public awareness of aquatic animal suffering will increase significantly thanks to the work of other NGOs (such as all the great NGOs in the Aquatic Animal Alliance ! [1])
this looks great!
one question: as i understand it, corporate advocacy for more well-known farmed animals (cattle, pigs, chicken) relies in part on favourable (from the advocate’s point of view) public opinion. if a producer or distributor is not open to change on any of the advocate’s asks, the advocate can gain leverage by drumming up grassroots campaigns against the producer/distributor. i expect that to be far harder with shrimp than with cattle, pigs and chicken. so i’m curious, what do you do if producers/distributors aren’t willing to listen to you because they don’t feel you present enough of a pr/legal/whatever threat?
another question: how concentrated is production and distribution of shrimp? are there e.g. few huge importers in the eu, or is it scattered? are there few huge farmers in south-east asia, or many small ones?
Great questions!
Advocacy: You’re absolutely right, that’s been our impressions of corporate advocacy work too and we’re currently not expecting to drum up grassroots campaigns, or do any significant work on public awareness. Our expectation as it stands is that we can frame the benefits of shrimp welfare as a lever for sustainability. The Seafood Task Force has managed to make shrimp supply chain improvements driven by retail largely without the buy-in of consumers [1]. In addition, we hope to enable corporations to be leaders in this area, as consumer awareness of aquatic welfare increases (i.e. due to Seaspiracy etc.).
Production: It’s pretty concentrated on a country level in terms of distribution [2]. In South-East Asia there are often many smaller farmers, but they work with agents who deliver the shrimps to a centralised processing plant for export [3]. Our understanding of importing at a company level is that there are a few key importers that dominate the market [4].
Do sustainability interventions reliably align with welfare? e.g. can shrimps still die from asphyxiation/poisoning in this order of magnitude when the conditions are “externally sustainable”? Is there a risk of some practices (like bigger density) being more sustainable but worse for welfare?
There are lots of overlaps between welfare and sustainability, with a great overview provided by the Aquatic Life Institute [1] (we’re hoping to publish a shrimp-focused look at the overlap of sustainability and welfare on our website soon!)
Our main concern is with super-intensive systems, in which many of these welfare issues are managed very well, but there are very high stocking densities. In less intensive systems, lower stocking densities can reduce stress and susceptibility to diseases, so we have a pretty good case for asking that they’re reduced as part of our Ask. But in high-intensive systems, water quality and risk of disease are managed well, so stocking densities can be very high—and the overlap of welfare and sustainability falls down. In this case, we’re hoping that being able to provide the farmers with access to a higher-welfare market becomes our main lever for justifying an ask to reduce stocking densities.
Thanks for your reply!
So as I understand it, public awareness may still be a limiting factor eventually, at least regarding high intensity systems, as it will be needed to back your asks from manufacturers that will no longer align with their sustainability concerns?
No problem, these are great questions!
And yes that’s true, each stakeholder in the shrimp supply chain is usually driven by the demands of the next link (i.e. farmer—processor—importer—distributor—consumer). So when it comes down to it, often the distributor (retailer/restaurant etc.) can only make a change if they have reason to believe that the public is demanding change...
Though we are anticipating that we can make lots of progress before we reach public awareness as our limiting factor (the scale is just so huge!).
And we expect that in the meantime, progress towards public awareness of aquatic animal suffering will increase significantly thanks to the work of other NGOs (such as all the great NGOs in the Aquatic Animal Alliance ! [1])