This is obviously correct.  We subscribe to all human and workers-right friendly practices but our “Who What Where How?” approach goes further than that and automatically selects for fisheries where abusive practise is a low risk.  Even our ambition to work consistently with the same supply chain and same partners continuously is one that minimises the “price first” sourcing approach that is used almost everywhere else.  Of course, price is important but it is never the first question we would ask.  We want access to the fishery resource to be democratically and equitably allocated, i.e. where the method and history of saying who gets what share has been done in a democratic, open and inclusive way.  Of course, that democratic ask needs to be positioned on a scale of acceptability and it’s one of the examples where making a good decision is not always straightforward.

Member States called for “holistic and integrated approaches to sustainable development that will guide humanity to live in harmony with nature and lead to efforts to restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem”. In this context, they stressed, among others, the importance of “the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans and seas and of their resources for sustainable development, including through their contributions to poverty eradication, sustained economic growth, food security and creation of sustainable livelihoods and decent work…”