EUROPEAN MARITIME DAY AAC Workshop – Social acceptability of EU aquaculture , 16, 2019

WELFARE and the social acceptability challenge

João L. Saraiva Fish Ethology and Welfare Group CCMAR, Faro, EUROPEAN MARITIME DAY AAC Workshop – Social acceptability of EU aquaculture Lisbon, May 16, 2019

Fish are SENTIENT sentient (adj. sen·​tient / sen(t)-sh(ē-)ənt , / sen-tē-ənt) : able to experience pleasure and pain Fish have rich SENSORY WORLDS

Fish are SOCIAL and have EMOTIONS

Fish are AWARE of themselves and others, and of their environment EUROPEAN MARITIME DAY AAC Workshop – Social acceptability of EU aquaculture Lisbon, May 16, 2019

FUNDAMENTAL research APPLIED research INDUSTRY implementation KNOWLEDGE IS KEY for the social acceptability of animal welfare EUROPEAN MARITIME DAY AAC Workshop – Social acceptability of EU aquaculture Lisbon, May 16, 2019

WELFARE STANDARDS in aquaculture

CAREFISH project : 10 countries, 50 fish farms, 30 species

2 years 6-8 mo 1 mo

1st visit report 2nd visit stakeholder welfare standards in assessment discussion FOS certification recommendations EUROPEAN MARITIME DAY AAC Workshop – Social acceptability of EU aquaculture Lisbon, May 16, 2019

Public perception of FISH WELFARE (Eurogroup for animals/CIWF survey: 9000 adults in 9 EU countries) Q. Which of the following comes closest to your view? To what extend should fish welfare be protected? %

The welfare of fish should be protected to a greater extent 11%

than the welfare of other animals we eat

The welfare of fish should be protected to the same extent as 79% the welfare of other animals we eat

The welfare of fish should be protected to a lesser extent 5% than the welfare of other animals we eat

Don’t know 6%

Base: All respondents (n=9,047)

• On average, four in five (79%) respondents across the European markets say that the welfare of fish should be protected to the same extent as the welfare of other animals we eat.

• Those in (15%) and the Czech Republic (14%) are most likely to say that the welfare of fish should be protected to a greater extent than the welfare of other animals we eat, while those in (7%) and (6%) are the least likely to say this.

• Adults who say that they know a fair/great deal about fish welfare are significantly more likely than those who know just a little/nothing at all to say that the welfare of fish should be protected to a greater extent than the welfare of other animals we eat (17% vs. 8%); in the same way, those who work with fish professionally are more likely than those who do not to say that fish should be protected to a greater extent than the welfare of other animals we eat (23% vs. 10%).

• One in five adults who describe their diet as pescatarian (19%) and vegan (18%) say that the welfare of fish should be protected to a greater extent than the welfare of other animals we eat, compared to 14% of those who describe their diet as vegetarian, and 10% of meat eaters/omnivores.

Page 12

Q. To what extent, if at all, does each of the following have an impact on your choice of which fish you buy?

NET: At NET: Has a Has least Has little Has no Little/ no Don’t great some some impact impact impact know EUROPEANimpact MARITIME impact DAY impact AAC Workshop – Social acceptability of EU aquaculture The quality of the fish 85% Lisbon,61% May 16,24 2019% 5% 2% 6% 4%

The freshness of the fish 85% 66% 19% 5% 2% 7% 3%

The cost 75% 36% 39% 12% 4% 16% 4% Public perceptionQQ.. TToo wwhhaatt eex xoftteennt t,FISH, iiff aatt aall ll,,WELFARE ddooeess eeaacchh ooff tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg hhaavvee aann iimmppaacctt onn yyoourr cchhoiicee off whiich ffiish you bbuuyy?? (Eurogroup for animals/CIWFWhether the survey: fish wa 9000s adults in 9 EU countries) 66% 30% 36% 16% 8% 23% 6% farmed or caught in the

Towil dwhat extent does these variables matter when buying fish? NNEETT:: AAtt NET:: The environmental HHaass aa HHaass impact of the fishing or lle6eaa5ss%tt 30% 35% HHaas1s 5llii%tttt llee HHa7s % nn oo Liitttt2lle2/% n o Do8n%’’ tt ggrreeaatt ssoommee farming method ssoommee iimmppaacctt iimppacctt iimpactt know iimmppaacctt iimmppaacctt iimmppaacctt TThhee qqguueaaollgiittryya opofhf ittchhaeel flfoiisschha tion 8855%% 6611%% 2244%% 55%% 2%% 6% 4% where the fish was 63% 27% 35% 17% 9% 27% 6% TTfahhreem ffrereedss hohnrn ecesassus goohff ttt hhee ffiisshh 8855%% 6666%% 1199%% 55%% 2%% 7% 3%

Whether the species is TThhee ccoosstt 776552%% 33660%% 33992%% 11226%% 48%% 1264%% 49%% being overfished WWhheetthheerr tthhee ffiisshh wwaass 6666%% 3300%% 3366%% 1166% 8%% 23% 6% ffTaahrrmme ewedde loofarr r cceaa uoufgg hthhtt e ii nnf i tsthhee 61% 27% 35% 17% 8% 25% 9% wwiilldd The amount of bycatch TThhee eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall involved in the fishing iimmppaacctt ooff tthhee ffiisshhiinngg oorr 6655%% 3300%% 3355%% 1155% 7%% 22% 8% process (capture and ffaarrmmiinngg mmeetthhoodd killing of other animals in 59% 29% 30% 15% 8% 24% 12% the fishing process e.g. TThhee ggeeooggrraapphhiiccaall llooccaattiioonn dolphins, sharks, turtles, wwhheerree tthhee ffiisshh wwaass 6633%% 2277%% 3355%% 1177% 9%% 27% 6% other fish) ffaarrmmeedd oorr ccaauugghhtt

WWThhee ttwhheoerr ktthihneeg s scppoeenccdiieeitssi oiissn s 6622%% 3300%% 3322%% 1166% 8%% 24% 9% bboeefi intnhgge o opvveeeorrfpfiislsehh eceaddt ching or 52% 19% 33% 22% 11% 33% 10% processing the fish TThhee wweellffaarree ooff tthhee ffiisshh 6611%% 2277%% 3355%% 1177% 8%% 25% 9% The brand 46% 16% 30% 26% 17% 42% 7% TThhee aammoouunntt ooff bbyyccaattcchh Biiannsvveoo:ll vvAeeldld r iienns ptthhoeen fdfiiesshnhtiinsn gg(n =9,047) pprroocceessss ((ccaappttuurree aanndd kkiilllli•inn gg Rooeff sooptthohenerdr eaanntiimsm aacllssr o iinsns the 55E9u9%r%o pean c22o99u%%n tries a33r0e0% %m ost lik11e55ly% t o say th8a%%t the qua2li4ty% and fres1h2n%e ss tthhee ffiisshh(biinnoggt h pp r8roo5cc%ee)ss oss f ee f..iggs..h impacts their decision of which fish to buy, and least likely to say that the ddoollpphhiinnbssr,a, snshhdaa (rr4kk6ss%,, t)tu uimrrttllpeeassc,, t s their decision. The welfare of the fish is more important to those purchasing ootthheerr ffifisisshhh)) than the working conditions of the people catching or processing it (61% vs 52%).

The working conditions The wo rking conditions ooff tthhee ppeeooppllee ccaattcchhiinngg oorr 5522%% 1199%% 3333%% 2222% 1111%% 33% 10% Page 13 pprroocceessssiinngg tthhee ffiisshh

TThhee bbrraanndd 4466%% 1166%% 3300%% 2266% 1177%% 42% 7%

BBaassee:: AAllll rreessppoonnddeennttss ((nn==99,,004477))

Respondents across the European countries are most likely to say that the quality and freshness •• Respondents across the European countries are most likely to say that the quality and freshness ((bbootthh 8855%%)) ooff ffiisshh iimmppaaccttss tthheeiirr ddeecciissiioonn ooff wwhhiicchh ffiisshh ttoo bbuuyy,, anndd lleeaasstt lliikkeelly tto say tthatt tthe bbrraanndd ((4466%%)) iimmppaaccttss tthheeiirr ddeecciissiioonn.. TThhee wweellffaarree ooff tthhee ffiisshh iiss mmoorree iimmpoorrttanntt tto tthose purrchasiing ffiisshh tthhaann tthhee wwoorrkkiinngg ccoonnddiittiioonnss ooff tthhee ppeeooppllee ccaattcchhiinngg oorr pprrooceesssiinngg iitt ((661% vs 52%))..

Page 13 Page 13

• Adults across the European countries are equally split on how they would like to see information about fish welfare (49% for both).

• However, when looking comparatively, adults in (65%) and Spain (60%) are significantly more likely than their counterparts in (40%) and (37%) to say that they would like to see this information as a standalone welfare label.

• Younger adults aged 18-24 are significantly more likely than their older counterparts to say that they would like to see information about the fish’s welfare as a standalone welfare label; 54% say this compared to 43% of those aged 65+.

Q. ImEUROPEANagine a scena MARITIMErio where yo uDAY are about to buy fish. It is an everyday food shopping scenario where AAC Workshopyou ha v–e Socialthe sam acceptabilitye amount of m ofon EUey y aquacultureou usually have at your disposal. An average package of two portion sLisbon,ized fish May fillet s16, co s2019ts [individual price per country]. How much would you be willing to pay for a ‘higher welfare’ version of the same fish product?

%

Public perception of FISH WELFARE 10.1% or less 6% (Eurogroup for animals/CIWF survey: 9000 adults in 9 EU countries) 0.1% - 10.0% less 2%

The same (0%) 7%

0.1% - 10.0% more 27%

How much would you be willing to pay for a ‘higher 10.1% - 20.0% more 18% welfare’ version of the same fish product? 20.1% - 30.0% more 16%

30.1% - 40.0% more 6%

40.1% - 50.0% more 8%

50.1% - 60.0% more 2%

60.1% - 70.0% more 1%

70.1% - 80.0% more 2%

80.1% - 90.0% more 2%

90.1% - 100.0% more 1%

100.1% or more 3% Base: All those who eat fish (n=8,689)

Page 17 EUROPEAN MARITIME DAY AAC Workshop – Social acceptability of EU aquaculture Lisbon, May 16, 2019

What social challenges lie ahead?