There already is a common global understanding of the need for improved fisheries management and conservation of marine biodiversity. This follows from the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and ensuing instruments, notably, the 1995 UN Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement), the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the 1993 FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement). In addition, Agenda 21 of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity gave additional political support to the goals of improved fisheries management as well as to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity. Finally, the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) highlights international support for the principle of protecting endangered species.
The potential usefulness of ecolabelling schemes to create market-based incentives for environmentally friendly products and production processes was internationally recognised at UNCED. At Rio, governments agreed to “encourage expansion of environmental labelling and other environmentally related product information programmes designed to assist consumers to make informed choices.”[2] Moreover, consumer organizations in many countries, and some international consumer unions, argue that consumers have a right to get information about products offered on the market that is relevant to their values and preferences, especially information pertaining to product safety or impacts on health or the environment.
Recent FAO assessments of the precarious state of many of the world’s fisheries resources seem to have galvanized some non-governmental organizations and private industry toward environmental labelling, or more specifically ecolabelling, as a complement to traditional fisheries management programmes currently in place. Similarly, in order to promote sustainable aquaculture practices and maintain market shares in eco-sensitive export markets, the aquaculture industry is developing environmental labelling schemes for some products such as cultured shrimp.
The goal of ecolabelling programmes is to create market-based incentives for better management of fisheries and aquaculture by creating consumer demand for seafood products from well-managed stocks and aquaculture farms. The increased demand is expected to result in a higher price and/or market share of such products thereby creating an incentive for producers to supply them. Positive incentives can also be created for fisheries managers and international organizations (see Box 1).
|
Box 1. Incentives Created by Ecolabelling The Nordic Technical Working Group on Eco-labelling Criteria identified the following positive incentives that are created by ecolabels for products from capture fisheries:
|
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of voluntary ecolabelling programmes for various products and sectors, many of which were initiated by NGOs and private industry as well as governments. All ecolabelling schemes share the common assumption that consumers’ product choices are not just motivated by price and mandatory product information (e.g. composition; nutritional contents). Other product attributes taken into account by consumers can relate to environmental and ecological objectives as well as economic and social objectives (e.g. fair trade; support to small farmers; discouragement of child labour).
Environmental labelling, in general, has been in existence around the world for many years and is defined as “making relevant environmental information available to appropriate consumers” (U.S. EPA. 1993, 1998). Environmental labelling may be mandatory or voluntary, and covers a wide range of product attributes. Environmental labelling may reflect the impact of the life cycle of a product on the environment, or some portion of the life cycle, such as the impact of the production process, the product’s use and/or disposal on the environment.
|
Box 2: Excerpts from Environment and Trade-related Provisions of Article 11 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Article 11.1.11. States should ensure that international and domestic trade in fish and fishery products accords with sound conservation and management practices through improving the identification of the origin of fish and fishery products treated. Article 11.1.12. States should ensure that environmental effects of post-harvest activities are considered in the development of related laws, regulations and policies without creating any market distortions. Article 11.2.3. States should ensure that measures affecting international trade in fish and fishery products are transparent, based, when applicable, on scientific evidence, and are in accordance with internationally agreed rules. Article 11.2.4. Fish trade measures adopted by States to protect human or animal life or health, the interests of consumers or the environment, should not be discriminatory and should be in accordance with internationally agreed trade rules, in particular the principles, rights and obligations established in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade of the WTO. Article 11.2.13. States should cooperate to develop internationally acceptable rules or standards for trade in fish and fishery products in accordance with the principles, rights, and obligations established in the WTO Agreement. Article 11.3.2. States, in accordance with their
national laws, should facilitate appropriate consultation with and participation
of industry as well as environmental and consumer groups in the development and
implementation of laws and regulations related to trade in fish and fishery
products. |
Environmental labelling may be conveyed in several forms, including seals-of-approval, single attribute certification, report cards, information disclosures or hazard warnings (U.S. EPA 1993). Such labelling has many potential societal benefits, including environmental improvement, accurate information dissemination to consumers, improved market share for producers, and increased awareness and interest by the public about environmental issues (Kuhre, 1997; Morris and Scarlett, 1996). Accurate information dissemination is necessary for consumers to make informed decisions regarding their purchases, and may lead to increased awareness of and interest in environmental issues. As consumers grow increasingly aware of environmental issues and the role their purchases may play in environmental degradation, market shares of products with some form of environmental labelling may grow at the expense of products without environmental labelling. This may be true even if the labelled product is more expensive, because informed consumers may be willing to pay more for the product they feel has the least impact on the environment.
The primary focus of environmental labelling has been on manufactured products, exclusive of food. As MacMullen (1998) and Deere (1999) note, little environmental labelling applies to fisheries products. However, that is changing. There are already several national, international, industry-sponsored, NGO-led and consumer-supplier partnership certification and standards schemes under development in the fisheries sector. The range of possible labels is broad. The focus of claims can range from “not over-fished, to no marine mammal by-catch and not over-fished, to no by-catch of any sort and not over-fished, to ecosystem friendly where the entire ecosystem with its complicated food chain is not harmed”.[3]
The number of institutions and the diversity of their interests guarantee conflicts in the definition of what constitutes sustainable use of fisheries. This is all the more true since criteria for sustainability of fisheries are complex. Moreover, labels may be labelling entirely different things. For example, a standard indicating that a management system for sustainable fisheries is in place is not the same as certifying that a given consignment of fisheries products was sustainably produced, but both may appear on labels. The risk is that competing claims or conflicting labels will confuse consumers, causing them to lose confidence in the scheme and thus depriving the approach of its value.
The below provides information on current labelling and product certification initiatives relevant to the fisheries sector. These relate to voluntary as well as mandatory labels.
Mark of Origin
In many instances, producers have sought to gain competitive advantage by drawing attention to the origin of fish through labels (see Box 3). Moreover, governments in some instances mandate the labelling of fish by origin and species as a way to enable more effective tracking and identification of fisheries products to aid fisheries management.
Product certification and catch documentation
Mandatory product certification (catch documentation) is sometimes used as a natural extension of normal monitoring and enforcement in fisheries. In some instances catch documentation and certification schemes are accompanied by trade-related measures (such as import and export controls or prohibitions) to reduce or eliminate trade in fish and fish products that do not meet the approved certification requirements. The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) use trade certification to encourage compliance with conservation and management decisions.
|
Box 3. Labelling for Origin in Spain The Spanish central and regional governments promote the development of denominations of origin. These denominations are registered with the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Livestock. Recent examples include:
|
The European Community has introduced new rules on the minimum level of information to be made available to the consumer for certain fishery products in the Community (Articles 4)[4]. The commercial designation, the production method (aquaculture or wild caught) and the area of capture will have to be marked or labelled on fish products. The new rules are to be implemented as from 1st January 2002.
The European Commission suggests that these rules could stimulate demand because consumers will be less likely to be misled on the origin and value of the product. Furthermore, consumers will be able to avoid fish that may have been produced or marketed in a way that harms conservation (e.g. undersized fish, or fish from certain origins/stocks). Finally, the details regarding the origin of the fish can be used by inspectors to cross check the data with data collected when the fish is landed at port.
‘Dolphin Safe’ Labels
A variety of producers in the United States have made self-declarations that their tuna is ‘dolphin safe’. The Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) of 1991 established criteria for the manner in which tuna must be caught. On a voluntary basis, companies can then label their tuna to be ‘dolphin safe’. More recently, in June 2001, the countries and regional economic integration organizations participating in the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) announced the creation of a unique and far-reaching programme to certify and label tuna caught in the eastern Pacific Ocean consistent with the AIDCP and without mortality or serious injury to dolphins.[5]
Organic Seafood Labels
There are also efforts underway by fishing or food companies in some parts of the world to label fish as farmed or wild, and more recently to win marketing niche with so-called ‘organic seafood’. Organic labelling usually signifies that food has been produced without artificial inputs-especially synthetic fertilisers and pesticides-and has been grown using environmentally sound farm management techniques.[6] There are currently two pilot projects monitoring Alaska seafood to help set standards to certify wild salmon as organic with the hope of breaking into the organic foods market.[7] There are also ongoing initiatives and pilot projects for organic aquaculture (see Annex B for related sites in the Internet).
Nordic Technical Working Group on Fisheries Eco-Labelling Criteria
The Nordic Technical Working Group on Eco-Labelling Criteria proposed an arrangement for the voluntary certification of products of sustainable fishing that was adopted by the Nordic Ministers of Fisheries in August 2001. The Working Group’s recommendations are based on the FAO Code of Conduct, the FAO’s Technical Guidelines for Fisheries Management and the Precautionary Approach, and the Biodiversity Convention.
The Working Group developed criteria for use in the North-eastern Atlantic region. The main elements of the proposed criteria are: a fisheries management plan; the availability of regular scientific advice; the existence of pre-agreed management actions when precautionary reference points are reached; efficient monitoring and control systems; destructive fishing practices are not used; discards are at a minimum; and that ecosystem issues are duly considered.
Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
The MSC is an independent, not for profit, international body headquartered in London, UK. Initiated by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Unilever, a large fish retailer, MSC aims to promote sustainable and responsible fisheries and fishing practices worldwide. The MSC has, in collaboration with a selected group of parties interested in and experiences with fisheries issues, established a broad set of Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. Fisheries meeting these standards will be eligible for third party certification by independent certifying bodies accredited by the MSC. On a voluntary basis, fishing companies and organizations are expected to contact certifiers in order to have a certification procedure carried out. Fish processing, wholesaling and retailing companies will be encouraged to make commitments to purchase fish from certified fisheries only. Unilever, for example, has pledged to buy only MSC certified fish by 2005. By opting to use the MSC logo, producers of fishery products are expected to give consumers the option to buy fishery products that have been derived from sustainable, well-managed sources. The MSC offers stakeholders the opportunity to publicly endorse the organization’s mission, by signing a Letter of Support.[8]
|
Box 4. Certification by the Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries certified: US Alaska salmon; UK Thames herring driftnet; South West (England) mackerel handline fishery and Burry Inlet cockle fishery (South Wales); Western Australia rock lobster; and New Zealand hoki; Fisheries undergoing full assessment as part of the MSC Certification Process: US Alaska pollock; Mexico’s Banco Chinchorro lobster and Baja California spiny lobster; Canada’s British Columbia salmon; and South Georgia Patagonian toothfish fishery. Additional fisheries are at different stages in the certification process. Source: www.msc.org |
MAC, a non-profit international organization based in Hawaii (U.S.A.), brings together representatives of the aquarium industry, hobbyists, conservation organizations, government agencies and public aquariums. MAC aims at conserving coral reefs by creating standards and educating and certifying those engaged in the collection and care of ornamental marine life from reef to aquarium. MAC has established and published best practice guidance and core performance standards for the ecosystem and fishery management, the collection, fishing and holding and the handling and transport of marine aquarium organisms. MAC does not directly undertake certification to its core standards. Instead it accredits independent third-party organizations (certifiers) to undertake this work. While no certifier is yet accredited under the MAC Certification Scheme, several certifiying firms have expressed interest in becoming accredited.[9]
Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA)
GAA, a U.S. based non-profit international aquaculture industry alliance, has developed the Responsible Aquaculture Program (RAP) to provide certified products to those who want assurance that it is environmentally responsible to buy farm-raised seafood. The Program is also intended to improve the efficiency and long-term sustainability of the aquaculture industry. RAP’s core is a system of certifiable standards for sustainable aquaculture farming. The Program encourages both small- and large-scale producers, processors, marketers and retailers to implement management practices that address these standards. While RAP’s initial focus is on shrimp aquaculture, many of its elements are expected to be applied to other species in future. GAA has developed nine individual codes of practices for responsible shrimp farming ranging from pond siting and management to the use of chemicals and community and employee relations. A label stating Certified - Best Aquaculture Practices is obtained in a 3-stage process from a self-assessment audit, to an environmental management plan and inspection, to certification and labelling. RAP is nearing completion in the near future.[10]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
General guidelines for environmental labels and declarations not addressed to any specific product category or sector are being developed by ISO, a non-governmental organization. ISO is a worldwide network of national standards institutes from some 130 countries, one from each country, with a central office in Geneva, Switzerland. For each country, the member body of ISO is the national body “most representative of standardisation in its country”. This national body may be from either the private or government sector. ISO’s mission is to promote the development of standardisation and related activities in the world with a view to facilitating the international exchange of goods and services, and to developing cooperation in the spheres of intellectual, scientific, technological and economic activity.
Environmental labels and declarations are one of the tools of environmental management, which is the subject of the ISO 14000 series.[11] This series does not prescribe environmental performance levels. Rather, to claim compliance with ISO 14000 standards, firms are required to establish an environmental policy and to set targets and objectives for environmental management performance.[12] ISO tends to be attractive to industry because it supports voluntary, market-based, measures as against traditional government command-and-control measures.
The ISO Sub-Committee on Environmental Labelling is responsible for developing standards in the field of environmental labels and declarations. The objective of the ISO 14 020 series is to set standards for the design and implementation of different types of environmental labelling programmes but not to lay down specific certification standards.
ISO has published general principles for environmental labels as well as specific guidelines for three different types of environmental labels: Type I labels are based on voluntary multi-criteria product life-cycle assessment of environmental performance with third party verification and certification. Type II labels are based on self-declared environmental claims by producers, importers and retailers on products and services. Type III labelling is based on a specialised third party scheme using quantified product information labels and pre-set indices.[13] In the literature, the term “ecolabel” or “ecolabelling” is often confined to ISO Type I labels (e.g. OECD 1997).
