I believe that there is no reason why the selected practices, knowledges and skills in fish processing could not be assessed as intangible cultural heritage. However, this is a complex and extremely sensitive area of ​​activity, which in my opinion requires a broad assessment in the first phase. I would consider the principle of resource sustainability with a viable economic future of the production and processing chain to be primary in the selection. Warning about some practices may be controversial for the taxa and habitats concerned. I give examples that immediately come to mind: If the drying of small haplochromid cichlids by the local population were considered intangible heritage, perhaps the past decision to introduce Giant Nile Perch into Lake Victoria would have been more comprehensive. The concepts of pintarroja, skrei, caviar and some types of sushi oppose the protection of the taxa concerned, while the prohibition of kosher and halal consumption by the relevant cultures may, on the contrary, support the protection of selected species and groups.

Yes, the activities involved in the industrial production of canned fish, such as tuna cutting (ronqueo), heading, cleaning, salting, cooking, and the canning process itself, can be considered intangible cultural heritage. These activities represent traditional skills and knowledge passed down through generations and are closely tied to the identities and histories of the communities involved. They involve specialized techniques and collective work practices, often carried out by specific groups like women workers, which reflect the social and cultural aspects of the industry. Recognizing these processes as intangible heritage helps preserve important cultural traditions and highlights their value beyond just industrial production.