Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

A qualitative assessment of selected certification schemes

The objective of this review is to provide some points for consideration when comparing or evaluating mechanisms for aquaculture certification. Choices of what is best or which approach to certification offers the most benefit is going to be determined by who is making the decisions. Certification which only considers the demands of the consumer will almost certainly be somewhat disadvantageous to the producer and equally, excessive compromises to the producer, will fail to present a credible product for the consumer.

SCHEMES ASSESSED

Out of the more than 30 aquaculture certification schemes identified, ten schemes were selected for a qualitative assessment. Selection of the schemes was based upon the availability of information (especially details on issues covered by the standards) and perceived relevance to countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The schemes assessed were:

  1. Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA)/Aquaculture Certification Council (ACC)
  2. GLOBALGAP
  3. Naturland
  4. Thai CoC
  5. SQF
  6. IFOAM
  7. ISO 9001
  8. ISO 14001
  9. ISO 22000
  10. FLO

Although Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO) does not yet have standards for aquaculture commodities, it was included in the analysis because it represents a unique example of fair-trade standards. In addition, FLO has repeatedly expressed its interest in developing standards for aquaculture commodities and it would appear likely that FLO standards for aquaculture will be developed in the near future.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The methodology used in this publication for the qualitative assessment used a combination of descriptive methods coupled to a simple weighting method (+1 being a benefit, 0 being neutral, -1 being a cost) to indicate the degree of impact. The results are not intended to be used as a quantitative assessment and do not reflect any true comparison between schemes as the schemes are often targeting different objectives. The assessment should not be seen as a traditional economic cost-benefit analysis but more like a qualitative description/ranking of the selected schemes. The assessment does provide a means to evaluate where opportunities and challenges may be derived and allows the discussion of the relative merits of the schemes assessed.

Descriptive analysis

A descriptive analysis of the ten schemes was conducted using a framework which included issues that were:

A total of 85 descriptors were used to describe each scheme: overall (25), the inspection process (2), the scheme applicable to producers (6) and the coverage of the scheme (52). The topics covered by the scheme included issues that were either general (5) or associated with food safety (10), the environment (17), aquatic animal health (12), social issues (5) or animal welfare (3).

A list of the descriptors is given in Table 2.

Because ISO 9001 has standards for quality management, a definition of quality had to be provided to describe the issues covered by the scheme. In this context, quality was defined as a process that addressed food safety and both environmental and social sustainability. Similarly, ISO 14001 and ISO 22000 were assumed to address the key issues concerning environmental sustainability and food safety respectively, although they are not detailed directly in the standards themselves.

Evaluation of costs and benefits based on descriptors

In the analyses done in this document, each descriptor was further examined for its impact on different stakeholder groups in terms of costs and benefits. The stakeholders that were grouped together in the analysis included: certified farmers; workers in certified farms; neighbouring farmers; other resource users; traders; processors; retailers; consumers; governments; the environment; animal welfare.

Costs and benefits were categorized as -1 and +1 respectively. Descriptors considering a combination of costs and benefits for a specific stakeholder group were categorized as 0. In general terms, practices to be complied with by producers were considered costs, unless they referred to strategies widely recognized as critical to improve production (e.g. disease control, testing water quality, etc.). Compliance to items included in the standards was most often considered a benefit for consumers as it added quality attributes to the product being consumed. The costs and benefits of each descriptor are reported in Table 2.

The sum total of the qualitative valuing of costs and benefits for each stakeholder group and for each certification scheme analysed was summed to give an overall figure. This method was designed to quantify the impact (whether positive or negative) of each scheme on the different stakeholder groups. The sum of the costs and benefits was also expressed as a proportion (percentage) of the total number of descriptors applicable to each scheme, therefore taking into consideration the fact that schemes for which many descriptors were applicable would also have higher values for costs or benefits.

Table 2. List of the descriptors of the schemes analysed and relative costs and benefits for different stakeholder groups
(please note that a hyphen in the table is equal to not applicable under the current scheme)

DESCRIPTORS

Certified fanners

Workers

Neighb. fanners

Other resource users

Traders

Processors

Retailers

Consumers

Gov't.

Env.

Animal welfare

ISEAL member

1

1

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

Benchmarked by GFSI

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

Scheme makes reference to international standards

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Is the procedure for standard development & revision documented?

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Were/are all the major stakeholder groups involved in the development/revision of the standard?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Is there a process for reviewing the standards regularly?

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Is input from stakeholders directly impacted (especially disadvantaged groups) actively sought?

1

1

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Is standard development based on the principles of consensus?

1

1

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Is there a documented process to address complaints with failures in following the process for standard development and revision?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Standards publicly available for implementation (even if including a reasonable fee)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Standards based on measurable/precise criteria

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Product or process standards

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Target of the label: consumer or food chain operators?

1

1

-

-

1

1

1

-1

-

-

-

Link between standard development & certification organizations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Implemented through third party certification

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Certification body accredited by an internationally recognized accreditation organization or accredited to ISO 65

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Free access to accredited CBs

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Allows for certification of producer groups

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Developed by competent representatives of direct stakeholders

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Scheme has standards for producers

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Scheme has standards for traders

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Scheme has standards for processors

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Scheme has standards for seed suppliers

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Scheme has standards for feed

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Requires compliance to the scheme throughout the supply chain

-1

-1

-

-

-1

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

Inspection process

Inspection by CB includes water testing/ environmental testing

-1

-

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

Inspection by CB includes consultation with local communities/assessment of off-site impact

-1

-

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

General points on producers' standards

Clearly stated principles

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Quantity of compliance points

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

Quantity of written documents required

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

Validity period of certificate/frequency of inspection

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Require records for (minimum time)

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

Period of compliance before being certified

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

COVERAGE OF STANDARDS

GENERAL

Compliance to law

-1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Internal audit

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

Performance monitoring

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

Performance improvement over time

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

Staff training

-1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

FOOD SAFETY

Development of food safety policy and manual/system

-1

-1

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

Use of HACCP approach

-1

-1

-

-

-

-1

-1

-1

-1

-

-

Food safety through site selection

-1

-1

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

GMO

-1

-1

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

Prohibit use of protein and fat from some species

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

Preharvest food safety

-1

-1

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

Pest control

-1

-1

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

Traceability

-1

-1

-

-

-1

1

1

1

1

-

-

Product testing

-1

-1

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

Post-harvest food safety

-1

-1

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

ENVIRONMENT

Requires environmental risk/impact assessment

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Environmental protection during farm siting

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Loss of mangrove and sensitive habitats

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Environmental impact considered during farm design and construction

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Stocking density

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

Demand on wild stocks for seed/broodstock

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Stocking of exotic species

-1

-1

1

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Water exchange/abstraction

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Requires testing/record keeping of water quality

1

1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

Provides water quality standards to be complied with

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

Water effluents

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-1

Demand for fish protein/oil

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

-1

Solid waste management

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Chemical/drug disposal

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Escapees

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Cumulative impact of multiple operations

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Energy efficiency & consumption

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH

Farm preparation to prevent health problems

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

Farm biosecurity

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

Responsible use of drugs and chemicals

-1

-1

1

1

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

Antibiotic use

-1

-1

1

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

-

Control on additional not-banned substances

-1

-1

1

1

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

Quality/health status of seed

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

Farm management to prevent health problems

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

Feed quality

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

Overfeeding/FCR

1

1

1

1

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

Monitoring of animal health

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

Disease spread to other farms during culture

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

Disposal of mortality

-1

-1

1

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

SOCIAL

Development of farmers' group

1

1

1

-

-1

-1

-

-

1

-

-

Other resource users/local communities

-1

-1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

Workers' welfare

-1

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

-

-

Forced labour

-1

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

-

-

Child labour

-1

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

-

-

ANIMAL WELFARE

Animal welfare (stress, etc.)

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

1

1

Protection from wild animals and predators

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

Application of non-lethal, or humane, methods of predator control

-1

-1

-1

-

-

-

-

1

-

1

1

As more detailed analysis to quantify the size of each cost or benefit or positive score would have required conducting stakeholder interviews, this approach was not adopted. Therefore an overall negative score does not indicate that the costs exceed the benefits. However, the scores allow the quantification, for different stakeholder groups, of the number of advantages and disadvantages generated from compliance to the scheme.

Review of additional costs and benefits

Additional information on the costs and benefits of each individual scheme was collected from Web sites. Information collected included the cost of certification of enterprises and the payment of premium prices by stakeholders in the supply chain.

RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE CERTIFICATION SCHEMES

Descriptive analysis

The results of the descriptive analysis are reported in Table 3. Details on each scheme can be found in Annexes 2–9.

Table 3. Summary of the descriptive analysis of the ten certification schemes analysed in detail

No.

Descriptors

Results

1

 ISEAL member 2 schemes

2

Benchmarked by GFSI

 1 scheme

3

Scheme makes reference to international standards

All schemes e.g. ISOs (8), Codex (5), ILO (3)

4

Is the procedure for standard development & revision documented?

 8 schemes

5

Were/are all the major stakeholder groups involved in the development/revision of the standard?

2 schemes. Other 3 schemes appeared to have involved most stakeholders

6

Is there a process for reviewing the standards regularly?

 8 schemes

7

Is input from stakeholders directly impacted (especially disadvantaged groups) actively sought?

 4 schemes

8

Is standard development based on the principles of consensus?

5 schemes. A process to reach a decision although not truly based on consensus adopted by 4 schemes

9

Is there a documented process to address complaints with failures in following the process for standard development and revision?

 6 schemes

10

Standards publicly available for implementation (even if including reasonable fee)

All schemes, of which 4 request the payment of a small fee

11

Standards based on measurable/precise criteria

6 schemes use measurable/precise criteria, while 4 schemes use criteria that are partially measurable/precise

12

Product or process standards

9 schemes based on process standards and 1 based on a combination of process and product standards

13

Target of the label: consumer or food chain operators

6 standards target consumers

14

Link between standard development & certification organizations

4 schemes have strong links, other 4 have mild links and only 2 have no links

15

Implemented through Third Party Certification

 5 schemes

16

Certification body accredited by internationally recognized accreditation organization or accredited to ISO 65

 3 schemes

17

Free access to accredited CBs

 3 schemes

18

Allows for certification of producer groups

 5 schemes

19

Developed by competent representatives of direct stakeholders

Partially by all schemes although only 4 had true representation of direct stakeholders

20

Scheme has standards for producers

 All schemes

21

Scheme has standards for traders

 7 schemes

22

Scheme has standards for processors

 9 schemes

23

Scheme has standards for seed suppliers

 7 schemes

24

Scheme has standards for feed

 7 schemes

25

Requires compliance to scheme throughout the supply chain

 6 schemes

Inspection process

26

Inspection by CB includes water testing/environmental testing

 3 schemes

27

Inspection by CB includes consultation with local communities/ assessment of off-site impact

 2 schemes

General points on producers’ standards

28

Clearly stated principles

 8 schemes

29

Quantity of compliance points

2 schemes have a high number of compliance points; 8 schemes have an average number

30

Quantity of written documents required

4 schemes require many documents

31

Validity period of certificate/frequency of inspection

When specified mostly 1 year

32

Require records for (minimum time)

2 schemes require 2 years of records, the remainder ask to keep records for 1 year or do not specify

33

Period of compliance before being certified

When specified it is often a full life cycle or 1 year, whichever shorter

COVERAGE OF STANDARDS

GENERAL

34

Compliance to law

6 schemes. Other 3 schemes request compliance to at least some legal documents

35

 Internal audit 7 schemes

36

Performance monitoring

 All schemes

37

Performance improvement over time

 6 schemes

38

 Staff training 8 schemes

FOOD SAFETY

39

Development of food safety policy and manual/system

 4 schemes

40

Use of HACCP approach

 3 schemes

41

Food safety through site selection

 3 schemes

42

 GMO 4 schemes

43

Prohibit use of protein and fat from some species

 3 schemes

44

Preharvest food safety

 9 schemes

45

 Pest control 6 schemes

46

 Traceability 9 schemes

47

Product testing

 6 schemes

48

Post-harvest food safety

 8 schemes

ENVIRONMENT

49

Requires environmental risk/impact assessment

 4 schemes

50

Environmental protection during farm siting

 6 schemes

51

Loss of mangrove and sensitive habitats

 8 schemes

52

Environmental impact considered during farm design and construction

 3 schemes

53

Stocking density

 5 schemes

54

Demand on wild stocks for seed/broodstock

 6 schemes

55

Stocking of exotic species

 5 schemes

56

Water exchange/abstraction

 7 schemes

57

Requires testing/record keeping of water quality

 8 schemes

58

Provides water quality standards to be complied with

 3 schemes

59

Water effluents

 8 schemes

60

Demand for fish protein/oil

 4 schemes

61

Solid waste management

 9 schemes

62

Chemical/drug disposal

 8 schemes

63

 Escapees 7 schemes

64

Cumulative impact of multiple operations

 4 schemes

65

Energy efficiency & consumption

 6 schemes

AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH

66

Farm preparation to prevent health problems

 4 schemes

67

Farm biosecurity

 3 schemes

68

Responsible use of drugs and chemicals

 All schemes

69

Antibiotic use21

 2 schemes

70

Control on additional not-banned substances

 3 schemes

71

Quality/health status of seed

 3 schemes

72

Farm management to prevent health problems

 6 schemes

73

 Feed quality 7 schemes

74

Overfeeding/FCR

 7 schemes

75

Monitoring of animal health

 6 schemes

76

Disease spread to other farms during culture

 3 schemes

77

Disposal of mortality

 4 schemes

SOCIAL

78

Development of farmers’ group

 2 schemes

79

Other resource users/local communities

 7 schemes

80

Workers’ welfare

 8 schemes

81

 Forced labour 8 schemes

82

 Child labour 4 schemes

ANIMAL WELFARE

83

Animal welfare (stress, etc.)

 4 schemes

84

Protection from wild animals and predators

 5 schemes

85

Application of non-lethal, or humane, methods of predator control

 5 schemes

Evaluation of costs and benefits based on descriptors

The evaluation of costs and benefits based on the descriptors revealed that schemes tended to provide more benefits to consumers (median value 33.5) and governments (median value 32.5), followed by the environment (median value 24) and neighbouring certified farms (median value 22.5), which benefited from the improved management in the certified farms. Other resource users, processors, retailers and animal welfare had approximately the same median value (13-16). Traders had a median value of 3 while certified farmers and their workers had negative median values (-12.5 and -6 respectively), mainly a reflection that compliance to standards generally represents a cost for certified businesses and, in consequence, for their employees.

The highest median value for certified producers was achieved by the Thai CoC (-7), while the lowest median value was obtained by GLOBALGAP, which also had the highest consumer median value (i.e. 50) as a reflection of the number of issues covered by the scheme. The total median values obtained by each scheme ranged between 5 (SQF) and 21 (GLOBALGAP).

When the costs and benefits were expressed as a proportion of the number of descriptors applicable for each scheme, a slightly different picture was observed; the Thai CoC was still the programme that most benefited producers while also having the highest overall median — it was closely followed by most other schemes.

A summary of the analysis based on the descriptors is reported in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4. Summary of the analysis conducted calculating the sum of the costs and benefits associated with each descriptor

SCHEME

Certified farmers

Workers

Neighb. farmers

Other resource users

Traders

Processors

Retailers

Consumers

Gov't.

Env.

Animal welfare

Min

Max

Median

Thai CoC

-7

0

25

18

2

16

17

34

33

24

16

-13

27

13

SQF

-8

-6

5

5

3

13

13

17

14

5

5

-22

50

21

ISO 14001

-10

-7

16

15

4

7

7

25

21

22

9

-19

40

16

FLO

-11

-3

24

20

3

13

14

33

32

24

11

-7

34

17

ISO 22000

-11

-4

8

8

3

11

11

19

15

7

5

-8

17

5

IFOAM

-13

-6

29

21

3

18

18

40

37

32

16

-13

40

18

GAA/ACC

-13

-6

17

15

4

13

13

27

25

21

10

-18

43

18

ISO 9001

-18

-9

21

15

3

18

18

43

35

28

15

-10

25

9

Naturland

-19

-10

24

18

3

16

16

40

35

30

15

-12

20

8

GLOBALGAP

-23

-17

25

19

3

21

21

50

41

31

18

-11

33

14

Minimum

-22

-16

5

5

2

7

7

17

14

5

5

-22

17

5

Maximum

-7

0

29

21

4

21

21

50

41

32

18

-7

50

21

Median

-12.5

-6

22.5

16.5

3

14.5

15

33.5

32.5

24

13

-12.5

33.5

15

Table 5. Summary of the analysis conducted calculating the proportion between the costs and benefits associated with each descriptor and the total number of descriptors applicable to each scheme

SCHEME

Certified fanners

Workers

Neighb. fanners

Other resource users

Traders

Processors

Retailers

Consumers

Gov't.

Env.

Animal welfare

Min

Max

Median

Thai CoC

-34%

-16%

45%

39%

11%

34%

34%

71%

66%

55%

26%

-34%

71%

34%

SQF

-34%

-25%

39%

30%

5%

33%

33%

78%

64%

48%

28%

-34%

78%

33%

ISO 14001

-35%

-19%

44%

33%

6%

30%

30%

74%

65%

56%

28%

-35%

74%

30%

FLO

-14%

0%

51%

37%

4%

33%

35%

69%

67%

49%

33%

-14%

69%

35%

ISO 22000

-29%

-21%

18%

18%

11%

46%

46%

61%

50%

18%

18%

-29%

61%

18%

IFOAM

-22%

-10%

49%

36%

5%

31%

31%

68%

63%

54%

27%

-22%

68%

31%

GAA/ACC

-33%

-17%

39%

28%

6%

33%

33%

80%

65%

52%

28%

-33%

80%

33%

ISO 9001

-28%

-19%

44%

42%

11%

19%

19%

69%

58%

61%

25%

-28%

69%

25%

Naturland

-40%

-17%

27%

27%

10%

40%

40%

67%

53%

23%

17%

-40%

67%

27%

GLOBALGAP

-22%

-6%

49%

41%

6%

27%

29%

67%

65%

49%

22%

-22%

67%

29%

Minimum

-40%

-25%

18%

18%

4%

19%

19%

61%

50%

18%

17%

-40%

61%

18%

Maximum

-14%

0%

51%

42%

11%

46%

46%

80%

67%

61%

33%

-14%

80%

35%

Median

-31%

-17%

44%

34%

6%

33%

33%

69%

64%

50%

27%

-31%

69%

30%

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS

GLOBALGAP (www.globalgab.org)

Costs

The GLOBALGAP Web site reports the following fees to be paid by producers or groups of producers:

CBs pay GLOBALGAP:

The detailed analysis of the schemes revealed several requirements that would prove difficult to comply with by small-scale producers, especially those in the Asia-Pacific region. Examples of such requirements are the high number of written documents required, the high number of control points and the need for registration of home-mixers of feedstuff and others. Health management is also to be conducted under the supervision of a veterinarian, which at present would be difficult for most small- and medium-scale aquaculture enterprises in Asia.

Benefits

GLOBALGAP reports a wide range of benefits such as:

GLOBALGAP declares that certification does not lead to better prices for producers. This is partly because GLOBALGAP labels do not appear on product packaging and are used only in business-to-business transactions. However, products from GLOBALGAP farms are at least sometimes presented to consumers in separate areas from ordinary products, therefore allowing consumers to distinguish products produced by GLOBALGAP-compliant businesses. It has also been reported that premium prices are currently being paid for GLOBALGAP certified shrimp.23 Benefits to the producer from being GLOBALGAP certified also include the fact that certified farmers are preferred producers, they obtain access to a larger market and they are paid promptly. In addition, owing to the wide coverage of the scheme, GLOBALGAP compliance leads to a range of external benefits for the environment, local communities and animal welfare.

Safe Quality Food Institute (www.sqfi.com and www.fmi.org)

Costs

No information could be gathered on the cost of certification as mainly this is available with accredited CBs and largely dependent on the size and type of farm.

Although the analyses of the schemes based on descriptors showed that the scheme did not have a very high number of costs for producers, the benefits for consumers were also relatively limited. In fact, consumers' benefits were largely restricted to food safety, although the scheme may change significantly with the introduction of the voluntary modules for environmental and social responsibility. Detailed analysis of the scheme revealed a number of critical costs for small-scale producers, including the development of a policy manual and the use of the HACCP system, which requires a great deal of capacity or consultation with external specialists and, as such, would be impractical for small-scale producers.

Benefits

The Safe Quality Food Institute (SQFI) reports the following benefits associated with the SQF scheme.24

GAA/ACC (www.gaalliance.org and www.aquaculturecertification.org)

Costs

According to the ACC Web site, to be certified, facilities have to pay: (1) A US$500 processing fee. (2) An inspection fee to certifiers (most recently to be paid directly to the ACC) composed of two parts — (i) a daily consultation rate which can vary from US$400 to US$800/day depending on the country in which the facility is located. Generally certifiers are said to spend several days evaluating a shrimp farm or facility and to decide whether the facility meets the requirement for certification. (ii) Actual expenses encountered by the ACC certifier, including the cost of travel, lodging, meals and communications (fax, Internet, etc.).

For processing facilities there is also a Pay Program Participation Fee, based on the amount of finished products exported from the facility in the last calendar year.

Plant exported:

Recertification costs to the business annually: US$1 000 for a processing fee and certifier-related fees for site inspection and review.

To increase the independence of the certification process, from January 2007 fees are to be paid directly to the ACC, which then compensates certifiers.

Benefits

Although so far there are no reports of better prices being paid for ACC-certified products, in 2005 Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the world, entered into a partnership with GAA and ACC by declaring that all the foreign shrimp suppliers should be certified as compliant to BAP. In early 2006, Darden Restaurants declared their intention to require GAA certification from their shrimp suppliers and, with the acceptance of ACC-certified products also by Lyons Seafood Ltd. (one of the major seafood suppliers in the United Kingdom); this scheme seems to be rapidly establishing itself in the market place.25 External benefits such as environmental protection and social sustainability would also appear to be associated with compliance with the scheme although no actual evidence is available yet.

Thai Quality Shrimp (www.thaiqualityshrimp.com)

Costs

A study conducted in 2002 and published by the Office of Agricultural Economics (2004) indicated that, although the size of harvests in CoC and non-CoC farms was very similar (i.e. 4 175 and 4 137 kg/ha respectively), the size of shrimp at harvest was, on average, larger in CoC ponds (55 vs 67 shrimp/kg). However, the profits per farm appeared to be slightly higher in non-CoC farms as a reflection of a higher proportion of farmed area; CoC ponds had an almost double reservoir/treatment pond area.

The application of the Thai quality standards would appear to be suitable to Thai shrimp producers. However, the applicability of these standards to systems in countries where shrimp farming is dominated by smaller scale producers (e.g. Viet Nam, Bangladesh, India, etc.) would appear to be limited as some of the requirements (e.g. establishment of a water treatment system, etc.) would be extremely demanding.

Benefits

The Thai Department of Fisheries declares that compliance with the Thai shrimp quality programme leads to the following benefits: premium prices, minimized environmental impact, improved sustainability of the sector and less conflict with NGOs, in addition to better acceptance of the product by buyers.

At the time when the study was conducted, prices for CoC shrimp were frequently reported to mirror those of non-CoC products, except in the case of differences in size, although reports are now emerging that CoC shrimp faces premium prices within Thailand and this may result in increased financial profits for farmers.26

ISO 9001 (www.iso.org)

Costs

The cost of certification for ISO 9001:2000 varies greatly depending on the company's current quality management system, the size and complexity of the organization and the quality objectives of the company (i.e. what quality attributes the company is targeting). According to the ITC Executive Forum,27 small companies that implement ISO 9000 without external support and using the ITC 5-Step Approach and ISO 9000 Implementation Manual and Forms Collection may be certified for as little as US$2 000.

Benefits

There are several internal benefits to be achieved through the implementation of a quality management system such as that covered by the ISO 9001 standard, including more efficient management and reduced costs associated with failures. External benefits include increased confidence by consumers (here meaning the parties purchasing the products) and potentially better prices paid at different levels throughout the supply chain, although no evidence of premium prices is as yet available.

ISO 14001 (www.iso.org)

Costs

Because of the diversity of the companies and the wide range of potential environmental impacts, it is difficult to provide a schedule of costs associated with ISO 14001 certification. Typically the evaluation of environmental aspects it is said to take three to six months. An additional three months are required to set objectives and targets and to complete the documented procedures. Further, the system must be running for at least three months before the certification audit, hence a nine- to 12-month period is usually required to achieve ISO 14001 certification.

Benefits

Many benefits have been reported to be associated with the implementation of ISO 14001. These include increased profits because of a reduction in wastes and inefficiencies, encouraging recycling, improving employees' health and consequently employees' efficiency. ISO 14001 is also likely to be appealing to "green consumers" seeking environmentally friendly products and therefore eliciting the payment of premium prices. Through the improvement of the environment, implementation of ISO 14001 has also been reported to bring social benefits.28

ISO 22000 (www.iso.org)

Costs

As for the implementation of other ISO standards, the cost of implementing ISO 22000 standards is dependent on the company type, size and complexity of operation.

Benefits

Like other standards, the consumers are the major beneficiaries from the implementation of ISO 22000. Benefits are arguably even higher in the case of ISO 22000 because of the strong food safety focus of this scheme. ISO 22000 is reported to also bring a number of benefits to businesses, developing countries and other stakeholders.

In fact, inter alia, ISO 22000 allows businesses to demonstrate their commitment to food safety; improves internal and external communication; demonstrates control of known food hazards; brings continuous improvement of the organization's food safety management system; and benefits developing countries by delivering technological expertise delivered by the standards, which are said to represent an international consensus, and through the decision-making framework developed via ISO 22000 implementation.29

IFOAM (www.ifoam.org)

Costs

Information collected from three IFOAM-accredited CBs identified that the average cost of certification ranges from US$300 to over US$2 000 per year (the latter figure associated with Norwegian aquaculture).30 IFOAM also states its interest in the development of standards and certification systems that are sufficiently innovative and cost efficient to address the constraints of small-scale businesses, especially in developing countries.31 The differences in the cost associated with certification that appear to exist in different countries would appear to address these needs, with the cost of certification for Thai farmers being almost ten times lower than those faced in Nordic countries.

Benefits

The IFOAM Web sites list several benefits associated with organic aquaculture and the IFOAM approach. They are, inter alia:

Products certified by IFOAM-accredited CBs are also known to receive premium prices. Analysis of the scheme descriptors also showed that compliance to IFOAM standards was associated with many benefits for consumers for a reasonably low number of costs to the producers. As the only organic scheme with membership of ISEAL, IFOAM is also likely to provide increased credibility when compared with other such schemes.

Naturland (www.naturland.de)

Costs

According to information produced in 2001, the certification fee to achieve Naturland certification comprises three items: an annual inspection cost, a membership fee and a licence fee as follows:

Experiences from the certification of a shrimp farmer group in Viet Nam show that the initial certification for a group would cost approximately US$90/farm (although groups with 1 000 farmers or more would pay about US$60–70/farm). The price would be lower (US$70–80/farm) in subsequent years.32

In 2004, the Naturland programme was criticized by the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) on allegations that Naturland shrimp farming projects in Ecuador and Indonesia did not follow Naturland standards, that the certification system was not working adequately and that Naturland standards did not contribute to shrimp farming sustainability. The allegations were all contested by Naturland, which provided information to prove that SSNC claims were unsubstantiated.

Benefits

Like other organic programmes, Naturland offers a range of benefits in terms of environmental and social sustainability. In Viet Nam, a project implemented with the support of SIPPO led to a premium price of 20 percent for Naturland certified shrimp to be sold primarily in Switzerland. A total of 5 percent of the premium was re-invested to cover the cost of certification for the following year, while the remaining 15 percent was distributed throughout the supply chain, with farmers allegedly receiving 5 percent.33 This initiative, started about three years ago, is still ongoing although recent exchanges among several of the players involved in this activity indicate growing concerns regarding the viability of this effort.34

Fairtrade Labelling Organizations (www.fairtrade.org.uk)

Costs

As reported on the FLO-CERT Web site, the cost of obtaining FLO certification varies depending on whether the organization comprises producers or organizations of producers. Organizations of producers are asked to pay the following:

Renewing FLO certificate costs is lower as farmers are requested to pay the annual fee, in addition to any cost for follow-up inspections, if any.

Benefits

FLO certification would appear to bring a number of social and environmental benefits at a relatively limited cost for producers. In addition, the FLO Web site also reports examples in which producers obtained a premium price for FLO-certified products and this was sometimes used by the producer organization to implement community projects.

Other analyses of certification schemes

A study commissioned by the European Commission reviewed the certification schemes available for food sold in European countries.35 Although the study covered only some of the quality schemes examined in this review (for example it excluded organic programmes) and was focused on the European context, it examined the whole supply chain and, as such can provide some useful information on different schemes of relevance to the aquaculture sector. In this EC study, pros and cons were grouped into five categories based on whether they concerned fair competition, environmental protection, consumer information, rural development and food chain competitiveness. An extract from the results obtained from the study is given in Table 6.

Table 6. Results obtained from the analysis of pros and cons of different schemes certifying food products sold on the European market36

Scheme

Attribute type

Pros

Cons

Pros/Cons

ISO 9001

Fair competition

4

0

3.5

Environment

0

1

Rural development

4

1

Consumer information

2

1

Food chain competitiveness

4

1

Total

14

4

ISO 14001

Fair competition

4

0

5.33

Environment

2

0

Rural development

4

1

Consumer information

2

1

Food chain competitiveness

4

1

Total

16

3

ISO 22000

Fair competition

3

1

2.17

Environment

2

0

Rural development

3

2

Consumer information

1

2

Food chain competitiveness

4

1

Total

13

6

GLOBALGAP

Fair competition

1

3

0.89

Environment

2

0

Rural development

2

2

Consumer information

1

2

Food chain competitiveness

2

2

Total

8

9

Label Rouge

Fair competition

3

1

5

Environment

1

1

Rural development

4

0

Consumer information

3

0

Food chain competitiveness

4

1

Total

15

3

19 http://www.isealalliance.org
20 http://www.ciesnet.com
21 Refers to schemes specifically covering the use of antibiotics, although other schemes may also have included antibiotic use within the more generic category of drugs and chemicals (item 68).
 22 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points.
 23 Erwin Roetert, consultant to GLOBALGAP, personal communication.
 24 Paul Ryan, Director of SQFI, personal communication.
 25 Outlook meetings spark synergy between shrimp and fish sectors. http://aquafeed.com/article.php?id=1767&sectionid=1
26 Pornlerd Chanratchakool, personal communication.
 27 ITC Executive Forum. An introduction to ISO 9000:2000. www.intracen.org/execforum/ef2005/quality_assurance_challenge_papers/Intro-ISO9000_Day4Sess1.pdf
28 ISO 14000 environmental management systems – benefits. http://www.trst.com/iso1-frame.htm
29 Pattron, D.D. Significance of ISO 22000 to the food industry. www.foodhaccp.com/onlinecourse/ISO22000.ppt
30 Hagai Raban, Agrior, personal communication; Jan-Widar Finden, Debio, personal communication; Weena Krutngoen, Organic Agriculture Certification Thailand, personal communication.
 31 http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/standards/ics.html
32 Philippe Serene, personal communication.
 33 Olivier Muller, SIPPO, personal communication.
 34 Philippe Serene, personal communication.
 35 EC. 2005. Food supply chain dynamics and quality certification. Final report. (DG JRC/IPTS).
 36 Modified from EC DG JRC/IPTS. 2005. Food supply chain dynamics and quality certification – final report. http://foodqualityschemes.jrc.es/en/documents/Finalreport_000.pdf

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page