5.1 Opportunities
5.2 Concerns
Ecolabelling schemes have provoked concerns among some countries, particularly developing countries about market access. To date, only little hard evidence has emerged on this subject.[49] In respect to organic labelled food products, farmers, often small-scale, of several developing countries have taken advantage of the rapidly growing markets in economically advanced countries. However, for the fisheries sector, developing countries already have concerns about the impact on their competitiveness of rules related to fish additives and food safety, fish health and technical standards.[50] The concern of some countries is that ecolabelling schemes in importing countries could simply add to the layer of constraints and competitive challenges they face. Four areas of concerns and several opportunities can be articulated.[51]
Many industry groups, civil society organizations and governments acknowledge the economic and ecological opportunities that ecolabelling could offer.
Environmental Opportunities
Many governments and industry groups recognise that ecolabelling could provide needed economic incentives for better long term stewardship and availability of natural resources important for national economic welfare. Ecolabelling schemes can provide countries one tool to help them fulfil commitments made under international agreements on important environmental imperatives such as responsible fisheries and the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The fundamental rationale for ecolabelling is, after all, to generate political support for improved environmental management and to raise environmental standards through consumer choice.
Economic Opportunities
Voluntary ecolabelling provides one of the least-coercive market-based mechanisms to improve conservation outcomes.[52] Private sector interest in ecolabelling for fisheries products in both developed and developing countries is growing, especially given the business and export opportunities ecolabelling has generated in some other sectors. Moreover, the potential for growth in the market share of ecolabelled products makes ecolabelling a compelling business choice. If fisheries management improves in response to efforts to comply with certification criteria, the potential benefits to fisheries in both industrial and developing countries could go far beyond higher revenues that ecolabelled products may generate. In fisheries, there are clear win-win options, even if the task of fisheries management is daunting in many places.
Ecolabelling is seen by some as an important element for gaining access to new premium green markets. For those producers willing and currently or potentially able to meet the sustainability requirements, ecolabelling presents an opportunity to add value to existing products, expand reach in existing markets, or maintain market share in a competitive environment.[53] Product differentiation could be a way for some exporters to enhance their export earnings and ecolabels could be one source of such product differentiation.
|
Box 13: Namibian Support for Guidelines for Ecolabelling. “...There are still interesting challenges in the area of trade and environment. One of these is the issue of eco-labelling.... Quite reasonably, some consumers are concerned as they approach fish counters and supermarket freezers and wondering whether their fish purchases are supporting similar disastrous exercises of overfishing. To the extent that customers are interested in being assured that the products they buy are harvested by sustainable fishing practices, and are prepared to pay more if necessary to buy products carrying the assurances they seek, we think they are entitled to reliable information in that direction. In this way, eco-labelling can harness consumer preferences through trade to strengthen sustainable fisheries management. For this reason, Namibia is supporting work by FAO towards the development of guidelines for eco-labelling.”[54] The Honourable Abraham Iyambo, Minister of Fisheries and
Marine Resources, Namibia. |
There are hopes too that countries may be able to mobilise additional financial and technical resources through their participation in ecolabelling schemes. Conceivably, ecolabelling schemes could comprise specific support programmes to facilitate compliance by the private sector with the labelling criteria, especially in developing countries, as well as temporary measures to compensate individuals and households who may be negatively affected. Finally, some entrepreneurs hope to carve out a distinct market niche based on the promotion of the sustainable nature of some artisanal modes of fish harvesting to both socially and environmentally conscious Northern consumers.[56]
In the future, consumer consciousness of environmental concerns is likely to grow in both North and South. This point is clearly recognised by many producers in both developed and developing countries. In both developed and developing countries, producers are working to comply with broad trends in environmental standards, such as ISO 14 000, in order to become more competitive in international markets.
In both North and South, one can argue that labelling that responds to consumer interest is likely to grow. Thus, at the global level, it makes sense for producers to get on board, one way or another, with environmental considerations in order to maximise their long-term competitiveness. Moreover, it is notable that there are several producer organizations and NGOs that recognise the opportunities that ecolabelling can present and that have had significant and productive involvement in the discussion of and development of ecolabelling schemes.
Despite these opportunities, some governments, producers and civil society groups have expressed various concerns about ecolabelling.
First, an overriding complaint is of lack of transparency and opportunities for participation in the development of product standards such as those that might play a role in assessments of sustainability. This is of particular concern in the fisheries sector where governments have primary management responsibility for fisheries within national exclusive economic zones and, moreover, are obliged under international law to cooperate with governments of other countries in the management of shared fish stocks and of fish stocks on the high seas. Effective participation of governments in the product standard setting process may therefore contribute to strong implementation of ecolabelling programmes.
Second, there are concerns among some governments and industry groups, particularly those from countries with strong fish export interests, that ecolabelling schemes could a) disguise underlying intentions to protect domestic industries, b) restrict market access; and c) erode national competitiveness for those less able to meet or afford foreign labelling and certification standards.[57]
Possible discriminatory effects of national and regional ecolabelling schemes can be attributed to a number of factors, including: 1) ecolabelling tends to be based on domestic environmental priorities and technologies in the importing country and may overlook acceptable products and manufacturing processes in the country of production; 2) the definition of product categories, and the determination of criteria and limit values may favour domestic over foreign producers; 3) ecolabelling may require foreign producers to meet criteria which are not relevant in the country of production; 4) environmental infrastructures may differ widely across countries; and 5) certain parameters used for calculating the environmental effects of products throughout their life-cycle may be based on information collected in the importing country or countries with comparable conditions, and may overestimate the environmental impacts in the actual country of production.[58] Furthermore, given the influence of the voluntary purchasing decisions of large wholesale, retail and restaurant chains that control large market shares in large fish consuming and importing regions, particularly in Europe and North America, these schemes could effectively lead to reductions in the capacity of non-ecolabelled products to be exported to or simply sold within those markets.
Third, there are fears that the costs of bringing fisheries management practices into compliance with the criteria and principles of transnational or foreign ecolabelling schemes, going through the certification process, and maintaining certifiable status could be prohibitive.[59] One challenge is that the quantity and quality of fisheries data is often low in developing countries and this factor may be a constraint to certification.[60] Also, the burden of complying with foreign product standards may fall disproportionately on small suppliers to the market for whom the cost of acquiring information about, and achieving, certifiable status and standards is relatively higher.[61] There have also been complaints that the lack of auditing/certification/ecolabelling infrastructure in developing countries will leave them dependent on expensive foreign consultants. As a result, developing countries have emphasised their need for greater financial and technical assistance for the improvement of fisheries management systems. The challenge of attaining sustainability is not at all unique to developing countries. Many fisheries in developed countries are depleted and unlikely to achieve certification in the near future. In developing countries, there are many fisheries that are less developed/depleted and for which certification might be more easily achieved. Therefore, in terms of the state of a fish stock, some certification programmes may in fact favour fisheries in developing countries over those in some developed countries.
Fourth, the voluntary nature of ecolabelling can raise challenges. While voluntary schemes need not result in explicit restrictions as some mandatory schemes might, they may indirectly affect trade due to institutional factors in producing countries. Institutional factors could include difficulties faced by producers in some countries in obtaining adequate supplies of materials, environmentally friendly technologies and other materials, which are acceptable for use in, or necessary to comply with standards for, ecolabelled products. Other institutional constraints could be inadequate and unequal financial and technical capacity within domestic regulatory agencies to facilitate sustainable fisheries management. Without the support of governments, many private industries cannot reasonably be expected to become sufficiently organised to independently institute effective management schemes and achieve certifiable status. In cases where governments either fail to act (or act inappropriately) to manage fisheries, the fishing industry may be penalised due to lower sales prices in the absence of certification.[62]
Finally, it can be argued that even if participation in ecolabelling schemes is voluntary, the definition of criteria for certification could clearly influence the impact of the schemes on countries with varied environmental and socio-economic conditions and interests. In the absence of some common international understanding, governments could be required to try to monitor, intervene or improve each individual scheme that arises to ensure the interests of their countries are not compromised. Internationally agreed guidelines on ecolabelling could reduce this potential burden of monitoring. Otherwise, there is the possibility that promoters of voluntary competing ecolabelling schemes, for example at the national level, are likely to seek to discredit the schemes of competitors.
