Seafood Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice

BLBK019-Ward

June 26, 2008

16:14

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

i

BLBK019-Ward

June 26, 2008

16:14

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling Principles and Practice

Edited by

Trevor Ward Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences University of Western Australia Perth, Australia

Bruce Phillips Department of Environmental Biology Curtin University of Technology Perth, Australia

A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication

iii

BLBK019-Ward

June 26, 2008

16:14

This edition first published 2008  C 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing programme has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell. Registered office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom Editorial office 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, United Kingdom 2121 State Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50014-8300, USA For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Seafood ecolabelling : principles and practice / edited by Trevor Ward, Bruce Phillips. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-6266-1 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Eco-labeling. 2. Seafood. I. Ward, Trevor J. II. Phillips, Bruce F. HF5413.S43 2008 658.8 23 – dc22 2008006139 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Set in 11/13pt Times by Aptara Inc., New Delhi, India Printed in Singapore by Fabulous Printers Pte Ltd 1

2008

iv

BLBK019-Ward

July 7, 2008

21:5

Contents

Colour Plates Foreword John Beddington Notes on Contributors Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Ecolabelling of Seafood: The Basic Concepts Trevor J. Ward and Bruce Phillips 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Ecolabelling programmes 1.3 How ecolabelling works 1.4 Types of ecolabels 1.5 Ecolabelling governance 1.6 Sustainability standards 1.7 Ecolabelling in the marketplace 1.7.1 The Blue Angel 1.7.2 Uptake by business 1.7.3 Seafood ecolabelling in Asia 1.7.4 A chef’s story References The Economics of Ecolabelling Cathy A. Roheim 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The economics of consumer demand for ecolabelled products 2.2.1 The theoretical foundation: economics of information 2.2.2 Demand for attributes 2.2.3 Empirical analysis of consumer demand for ecolabelled seafood 2.2.4 Consumer demand for dolphin-safe tuna 2.3 The economics of the market 2.4 The economics of certification of fisheries 2.5 Conclusions and need for future research References

xv xvii xix 1 1 2 7 10 18 22 24 25 26 28 29 36 38 38 40 40 41 42 46 46 52 54 56 v

BLBK019-Ward

vi

July 7, 2008

21:5

Contents

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries Rolf Willmann, Kevern Cochrane & William Emerson 3.1 The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and capture fisheries 3.2 The origins of the ecolabelling debate in FAO 3.3 The development of the FAO ecolabelling guidelines 3.3.1 Scope 3.3.2 Principles 3.3.3 General considerations 3.3.4 Terms and definitions 3.3.5 Minimum substantive requirements and criteria for ecolabels 3.3.6 Procedural and institutional aspects 3.4 Conclusions References The Marine Stewardship Council Programme Rupert Howes 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The MSC background and history 4.3 How the MSC programme works 4.3.1 The concepts 4.3.2 Implementing the programme 4.4 The MSC vision and mission 4.5 Progress to date 4.5.1 Europe 4.5.2 North America 4.5.3 Central and South America 4.5.4 Asia-Pacific region 4.5.5 Africa 4.6 The ecological case 4.7 Proof of concept 4.7.1 Retailers 4.7.2 Restaurants and foodservice 4.7.3 Consumer awareness 4.8 Strengthening the fishery assessment process 4.9 Traceability and assurance in the supply chain 4.10 Developing world programme 4.10.1 The GASSDD project 4.11 System of governance 4.12 The MSC’s future References

58

58 59 62 63 64 66 67 70 74 79 79 81 81 83 84 84 89 91 92 92 93 93 93 94 94 95 95 96 97 98 99 99 100 101 102 103

BLBK019-Ward

July 7, 2008

21:5

Contents

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Aquaculture Certification Daniel Lee 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Sustainable aquaculture 5.3 Environmental pressure 5.4 Economic pressure 5.5 Aquaculture certification schemes 5.6 Unintended consequences 5.7 The alliance 5.8 The GAA principles 5.9 The GAA vision 5.10 Codes of practice 5.11 Standards 5.12 The Aquaculture Certification Council, Inc. 5.13 GAA perspectives 5.13.1 Mangroves 5.13.2 Fishmeal 5.13.3 Antibiotic residues 5.13.4 Trade issues 5.14 Conclusions References GLOBALGAP – Building Consumer Confidence in Aquaculture Sustainability Aldin Hilbrands 6.1 Background 6.2 About GLOBALGAP 6.2.1 Governance 6.2.2 Process of standard development 6.2.3 Training and implementation 6.2.4 Auditing and certification 6.2.5 Accreditation of certification bodies 6.2.6 Benchmarking and approval of equivalent certification standards 6.3 The integrated aquaculture assurance standard References Advancing the Global Marketplace for Sustainable Seafood: The Seafood Choices Alliance Michael Boots 7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 Conditioning the climate for sustainable seafood

vii

106 106 107 108 112 113 115 117 119 120 121 123 126 128 128 129 130 130 131 131

134 134 136 137 138 139 139 140 141 141 142

143 143 143

BLBK019-Ward

viii

July 7, 2008

21:5

Contents

7.1.2 The power of social marketing 7.1.3 Filling a unique niche 7.1.4 Shifting perceptions and attitudes 7.2 Building the Seafood Choices Movement 7.2.1 The early days of the movement 7.2.2 Structure of the movement: Five pillars of seafood choices 7.3 Seafood Choices Alliance: An international association for sustainable seafood 7.3.1 Philosophy and approach 7.3.2 The work of the alliance 7.4 Looking forward: The evolution of a more diverse and global alliance 7.5 Conclusions References Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish Geoffrey Muldoon & Peter Scott 8.1 Introduction 8.2 The live reef food fish trade in Asia-Pacific 8.3 Certification within the LRFFT 8.4 Developing the international standard 8.4.1 Background 8.4.2 Collaborative management models 8.4.3 Determining key elements for inclusion in the LRFFT standard 8.4.4 The scope of the LRFFT standard 8.4.5 Defining a preliminary standard structure 8.4.6 Development, review and revision of the standard 8.5 Best-practice guidance and implementation 8.6 Implementing the standard 8.6.1 Compliance 8.6.2 Implementation frameworks 8.6.3 Assessing the feasibility of certification 8.7 Conclusions References Market-Based Mechanisms – Improving Fisheries Management? Duncan Leadbitter 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Trends in seafood trade 9.3 Impacts of trade on fish and fisheries

144 145 146 147 147 150 154 154 155 158 159 160 161 161 161 167 168 168 169 170 171 171 173 178 180 180 180 182 182 184 187 187 188 189

BLBK019-Ward

July 7, 2008

21:5

Contents

9.4 Illegal fishing – a compelling issue 9.5 The private sector and demand control 9.5.1 Catch tracking and identification 9.5.2 Marketplace identification and the role of consumers 9.6 Issues associated with seafood ecolabelling 9.7 Sourcing policies – retailers and the food trade 9.8 Species bans and advisory cards 9.9 Threats and opportunities 9.10 Summary and conclusions References Chapter 10 Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling Trevor J. Ward 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Producing seafood sustainably 10.2.1 The issues of concern 10.3 Assessing ecological sustainability 10.4 The nature of success 10.4.1 The sustainability standard 10.4.2 Clear and unequivocal standard 10.4.3 Scope and focus 10.4.4 Outcomes and processes 10.4.5 A balanced standard 10.4.6 Technical clarity 10.4.7 Achievable 10.4.8 Fixed versus flexible standard? 10.4.9 Normative standard 10.5 Verification 10.5.1 Verification cost versus quality 10.5.2 Grading of performance 10.6 Determining success 10.6.1 What to measure? 10.6.2 The decision basis for determining success 10.6.3 Dealing with uncertainty and gaps in knowledge 10.6.4 Timescales for improvement 10.7 Conclusions References Chapter 11 Case Study 1: Toothfish – An MSC-Certified Fishery David Agnew 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Substantive issues

ix

191 192 193 195 197 198 200 201 202 203 207 207 208 209 211 214 216 217 218 221 222 225 226 227 228 230 231 234 235 235 237 239 240 241 243 247 247 249

BLBK019-Ward

x

July 7, 2008

21:5

Contents

11.3 The objection 11.4 Chain of custody 11.5 Current status of certification 11.6 Conclusions References Chapter 12 Case Study 2: The Baja California, Mexico, Lobster Fishery Bruce Phillips, Luis Bourill´on & Mario Ramade 12.1 Introduction 12.2 Management system 12.3 Status of the stock 12.4 Why MSC certification was sought 12.5 The MSC assessment 12.6 The fishery and the market for products since certification 12.7 Benefits to the community and the environment 12.8 Some reflections on the certification References Chapter 13 Case Study 3: MSC Certification of the Alaska Pollock Fishery Jim Gilmore 13.1 Introduction 13.2 The At-sea Processors Association 13.3 The Alaska pollock fishery 13.4 The MSC assessment process – January 2001 to February 2005 13.5 Issues encountered by APA in the assessment process 13.5.1 A 4-year long assessment process 13.5.2 Subjectivity in scoring 13.5.3 Retroactive application of new rules 13.6 Alaska pollock and the sustainable seafood marketplace 13.7 The MSC ‘reform agenda’ 13.7.1 Private foundations and NGO attitudes 13.7.2 Clarifying, interpreting or changing the MSC sustainability standard 13.7.3 The environmental benefits project 13.7.4 Continuous improvement of participating fisheries 13.7.5 Improving the assessment process for participating fisheries 13.8 Conclusions References

251 255 256 257 258 259 259 261 262 263 263 264 266 266 267 269 269 270 272 273 275 275 276 278 280 281 282 282 283 284 284 285 285

BLBK019-Ward

July 7, 2008

21:5

Contents

Chapter 14 The Marine Stewardship Council and Developing Countries Stefano Ponte 14.1 Introduction 14.2 The Marine Stewardship Council initiative 14.2.1 General features 14.2.2 Early criticism of MSC 14.2.3 New challenges 14.3 MSC and the South African hake industry 14.3.1 Main features of the South African hake industry 14.3.2 Motivations for the adoption of MSC certification 14.3.3 The certification process 14.3.4 Verification after certification 14.4 An evaluation of MSC certification in South Africa 14.5 Conclusions References Chapter 15 Benefits of Certification for Small-scale Fisheries Meredith Lopuch 15.1 Introduction 15.2 The certification dilemmas 15.3 Benefits of the certification process 15.3.1 Filling knowledge gaps 15.3.2 Filling knowledge gaps in practice 15.3.3 Lobbying power 15.3.4 Creating lobbying power 15.3.5 Creating insurance 15.3.6 Using the process as insurance 15.3.7 Community organisation and empowerment 15.3.8 Creating community organisation and empowerment 15.3.9 Social and political benefits 15.3.10 Creating social and political benefits 15.4 Conclusions References Chapter 16 New England Aquarium: Supporting Environmentally Responsible Seafood Choices Heather Tausig, Michael Tlusty, Lydia Bergen, Gregory Stone & Kathleen Szleper 16.1 The New England Aquarium

xi

287 287 288 288 289 291 295 296 297 299 299 301 301 304 307 307 308 311 312 313 314 315 316 316 317 318 318 319 320 321

322

322

BLBK019-Ward

xii

July 7, 2008

21:5

Contents

16.2 The Aquarium’s programme 16.3 Encouraging increased fishery performance 16.4 The Aquarium’s decision-ranking tool 16.4.1 Wild fisheries decision-ranking tool 16.4.2 Aquaculture decision-ranking tool 16.5 Applying the decision-ranking tool to business recommendations 16.6 Expectations for outcomes 16.6.1 Industry-related outcomes 16.6.2 Consumer-related outcomes 16.7 New directions 16.7.1 Increased focus on aquaculture 16.7.2 New corporate partners 16.7.3 Working with suppliers 16.7.4 Increased involvement in collaborative efforts Acknowledgements References Chapter 17 Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® Programme Jennifer Dianto Kemmerly 17.1 Introduction 17.2 History of the Monterey Bay Aquarium® and the Seafood Watch programme 17.3 Target audiences of the Seafood Watch programme 17.4 Partnerships: Moving from awareness to action 17.4.1 Reaching consumers through partnerships 17.4.2 Reaching consumers through the internet 17.4.3 Reaching restaurateurs 17.4.4 Sustainable seafood for big businesses 17.5 Distribution of seafood purchasing recommendations 17.6 Developing regional seafood recommendations 17.7 Seafood Watch methodology for evaluating seafood 17.7.1 Seafood Watch principles of sustainability and evaluation criteria 17.7.2 Other information accompanying our seafood recommendations 17.8 Seafood Watch’s role in the seafood movement 17.8.1 Salience through context-setting activities 17.8.2 Increasing demand by bringing major buyers to the table

323 324 326 329 330 332 333 334 334 335 336 336 337 337 337 338 340 340 340 343 346 347 348 349 350 352 353 355 356 358 359 359 360

BLBK019-Ward

July 7, 2008

21:5

Contents

17.8.3 Creating a viable supply of sustainable seafood to support the demand 17.9 What does success look like? 17.9.1 Seafood Watch evaluation 17.9.2 Implications for the future of Seafood Watch 17.10 Conclusions References Chapter 18 The New Zealand Best Fish Guide Barry Weeber & Cath Wallace 18.1 Introduction 18.2 Description of the programme 18.3 Information sources, procedures and methodologies 18.3.1 Information sources 18.3.2 Precautionary management 18.3.3 Criteria 18.3.4 Weighting 18.3.5 Individual fish species 18.4 Expectations for outcomes 18.5 Influencing consumer choices 18.6 Programme marketing 18.7 Effectiveness in the marketplace 18.8 New directions 18.9 Conclusions References Chapter 19 Guiding Australian Consumers to Sustainable Seafood Choices Craig Bohm 19.1 Introduction 19.2 Description of the Guide 19.2.1 Funding 19.2.2 Information sources 19.2.3 Target audiences 19.2.4 Measuring sticks 19.3 Species Assessments 19.3.1 Criteria – wild fisheries 19.3.2 Criteria – aquaculture 19.4 Guide impact 19.5 The challenges 19.5.1 Paucity of information 19.5.2 Resolving the complex nature of fishing 19.5.3 Inadequate seafood labelling

xiii

360 360 361 364 365 366 367 367 369 370 371 371 372 379 380 382 383 383 384 385 385 386 389 389 390 392 392 393 393 394 394 396 398 399 400 401 401

BLBK019-Ward

xiv

July 7, 2008

21:5

Contents

19.6 New directions References Chapter 20 Towards Sustainable Seafood: The Evolution of a Conservation Movement Michael Sutton & Laura Wimpee 20.1 Introduction 20.2 Early campaigns 20.3 From stick to carrot: The Marine Stewardship Council 20.4 Sustainable seafood goes mainstream 20.5 The future of sustainable seafood 20.6 The blue revolution References

401 402

403 403 404 406 409 411 413 414

Chapter 21 Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade Trevor J. Ward & Bruce Phillips 21.1 Introduction 21.2 Design of ecolabelling programmes 21.3 The motivations for certification 21.3.1 Voluntary assessment systems 21.3.2 Government assessment systems 21.4 Quality of the standard 21.5 The business of certification 21.5.1 Business models 21.5.2 The price 21.5.3 Lobbying 21.5.4 Funding base 21.5.5 Future business models 21.6 The costs and benefits of pre-assessment 21.7 Assessment and certification – the processes 21.7.1 Stakeholder engagement 21.7.2 Technical inputs 21.8 Environmental monitoring 21.9 Product recommendations and buying guides 21.10 The evolutionary path 21.11 Certification and ecolabelling systems of the future Acknowledgements References

416

Index

437

Colour Plates appear between pages 138 and 139 and pages 282 and 283.

416 417 419 419 421 422 423 423 424 424 424 425 425 426 426 426 427 428 430 432 434 434

BLBK019-Ward

June 26, 2008

16:14

Colour Plates

1.1 MSC eco-labelled rock lobster from Australia’s Western Rock Lobster Fishery; KRAV ecolabelled jar of pickled herring 1.2 The ‘Citizens Guide to Seafood’ issued by the Sierra Club of Canada (BC Chapter) in 2004, 1.3 Chefs at Cooking for SolutionsR , Monterey Bay Aquarium 4.1 The main sources of MSC operating funds 4.2 MSC-certified pelagic and Dover sole fishery, UK 4.3 The world distribution of MSC-ecolabelled or certified products and certified fisheries 4.4 A sample of the MSC-labelled seafood products available from around the world 7.1 Give Swordfish A Break logos 7.2 Logos for the Caviar Emptor (US) and L’Autre Caviar (Europe) campaigns 7.3 The Audubon seafood wallet card, 1999 7.4 Sourcing Seafood – a source book of environmentally recommended supplies of seafood 8.1 Leopard Coral Trout, a highly prized and heavily traded species in the live fish trade 8.2 The dining setting in a live fish restaurant, Hong Kong 10.1 Eight brands of canned tuna each carrying a different form of ‘dolphinfriendly’ ecolabel 12.1 Fishing operation for spiny lobsters in Baja California, Mexico 12.2 Fisher checking if the spiny lobster is legal size 13.1 Catch of Alaska pollock 13.2 Pollock as a percentage of fish eligible to carry the MSC ecolabel (2006) 13.3 Young’s Chip Shop product bearing the MSC ecolabel 14.1 Trawlers in Cape Town harbour 15.1 Fishing community in Ha Long Bay, Vietnam 15.2 Baja California spiny lobster, from Bancho Chinchorro, Mexico 15.3 Baja California spiny lobster fishery certification event, La Paz, Mexico 17.1 The site of the former Hovden Cannery, now the Monterey Bay Aquarium 17.2 The Fishing for SolutionsR exhibit educated visitors from 1997 until 1999 at the Monterey Bay Aquarium 17.3 Consumers using the Seafood WatchR pocket guide xv

BLBK019-Ward

xvi

June 26, 2008

16:14

Colour Plates

17.4 The Vanishing WildlifeR exhibit integrates the Seafood Watch pocket guide, Monterey Bay Aquarium 17.5 The Real Cost CafeR . Aquarium visitors ‘dine’ in a simulated caf´e, Monterey Bay Aquarium 17.6 Chefs celebrate and dish out sustainable seafood at Cooking for SolutionsR , Monterey Bay Aquarium 17.7 The pocket guide table of sustainability ranks and recommendation (Seafood Watch) 17.8 The 2007 National Seafood Watch pocket guide 18.1 The New Zealand Best Fish Guide wallet card 19.1 Sample pages from Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide

BLBK019-Ward

June 26, 2008

16:14

Foreword

Many recent studies have sought to characterise the catastrophic decline in the viability of fish stocks throughout the world. Many of these studies have some flaws, and indeed there are concerns that the overall level of depletion and the consequences for ecosystems are likely to be somewhat exaggerated. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that a large number of important fish stocks are too heavily exploited and that there are consequently threats to ecosystem functions and biodiversity. This biological problem is complemented by the well-documented economic problem that there is significant overcapacity in the world’s fishing industry and that sustainable catches would be better taken by a vastly reduced world fleet. There are, of course, major variations around the world, and the state of both the biological systems and economics is poorly understood in much of the developing world. The overcapacity problem has been exacerbated by years of fishing subsidies and, although this has been highlighted in a number of studies, there has been relatively little response to the need for a reduction in subsidies to fishing operators. The reasons for the inadequacies of fisheries management at a global level are varied, and indeed there have been many quite important successes in fisheries management processes in which declines have been reversed and the sustainability of a number of stocks achieved. There is no universal solution to the fisheries management problem, and the appropriate measures to achieve sustainability and reverse declines will vary from situation to situation. Nevertheless, there seems to be a growing consensus that the involvement of stakeholders in the management process is going to be of great value in achieving sustainable fisheries. In its simplest form, the active involvement of stakeholders is achieved by the allocation of property rights to them. This has been shown both to address the overcapacity problem and to enhance sustainability as it is in the interest of the owners of the resource to ensure its sustainability; thus problems of enforcement, data collection, etc., are mitigated by this procedure. Seafood Ecolabelling addresses an important aspect of stakeholder involvement, namely the way in which consumers can, by exercising a choice between different seafood producers and products, affect the economic decisions of those involved in commercial fishing. The hope is that consumer pressure will reduce the profitability, particularly in the short term, of those operators who are fishing unsustainably, and enhance those who are fishing within sustainably managed fisheries. xvii

BLBK019-Ward

xviii

June 26, 2008

16:14

Foreword

This interesting book deals with a number of important issues involved in allowing consumer choice to affect fisheries management. The general approaches are well supplemented by detailed case studies and enhanced by interesting perspectives from a diversity of stakeholders. The final section deals with the interesting speculation about where ecolabelling is going in the future. In my view, seafood ecolabelling is going to be an increasingly important aspect of fisheries management in the future, and it is a new and important tool in trying to ensure that the future of fisheries will be better than its past. John Beddington Imperial College, London

BLBK019-Ward

June 26, 2008

16:14

Contributors

Dr David Agnew, Division of Biology, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP, UK Prof. John Beddington, Division of Biology, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP, UK Lydia Bergen, New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110, USA Craig Bohm, Australian Marine Conservation Society, PO Box 5136, Manly, Queensland 4179, Australia Michael Boots, Seafood Choices Alliance, 8401 Colesville Road, Suite 500, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA Dr Luis Bourill´on, Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C. (COBI), Blvd. Agua Marina 297, Colonia Delicias, Guaymas, Sonora 85420, M´exico Kevern Cochrane, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy Jennifer Dianto Kemmerly, Monterey Bay Aquarium, 886 Cannery Row, Monterey, CA 93940, USA William Emerson, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy Jim Gilmore, At-sea Processors Association, 1225 I Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005, USA Aldin Hilbrands, Royal Ahold, Piet Heinkade 167-173, PO Box 985, 1000 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands Rupert Howes, Marine Stewardship Council, 3rd Floor Mountbarrow House, 6-20 Elizabeth Street, London SW1W 9RB, UK Duncan Leadbitter, Marine Stewardship Council, Asia Pacific, 10/46-48 Urunga Pde, Miranda, NSW 2228, Australia xix

BLBK019-Ward

June 26, 2008

xx

Contributors

16:14

Daniel Lee, Global Aquaculture Alliance Inc., 5661 Telegraph Road, Suite 3A, St. Louis, MO 63129, USA Meredith Lopuch, World Wildlife Fund, California Marine Office, 171 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, USA Geoffrey Muldoon, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia Prof. Bruce Phillips, Department of Enviornmental Biology, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia Dr Stefano Ponte, Danish Institute for International Studies, Strandgade 56, 1401 Copenhagen K, Denmark Mario Ramade, Federaci´on Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera Baja California (FEDECOOP), Calle Segunda y Soto No. 283, Ensenada, Baja California 22830, M´exico Prof. Cathy A. Roheim, Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, 1 Greenhouse Road, Kingston, RI 02881, USA Peter Scott, Bagong Lipunan ng Crame, Cubao, 1111 Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Dr Gregory Stone, New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110, USA Michael Sutton, Center for the Future of the Oceans, Monterey Bay Aquarium, 886 Cannery Row, Monterey, CA 93940, USA Kathleen Szleper, New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110, USA Heather Tausig, New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110, USA Dr Michael Tlusty, New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110, USA Cath Wallace, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand Dr Trevor J. Ward, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia Barry Weeber, ECO-NZ, PO Box 11-057, Wellington, New Zealand

BLBK019-Ward

June 26, 2008

16:14

Contributors

xxi

Rolf Willmann, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy Laura Wimpee, Center for the Future of the Oceans, Monterey Bay Aquarium, 886 Cannery Row, Monterey, CA 93940, USA

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:2

Plate 1.1 A spiny (rock) lobster from the world’s first MSC-certified fishery – Australia’s Western Rock Lobster Fishery – carrying the MSC ecolabel (From Western Australian Department of Industry and Resources, and Department of Fisheries); and an ecolabelled jar of pickled herring (From Niklas Wennberg, Hyla Pond AB, Sweden).

Plate 1.2 The ‘Citizens Guide to Seafood’ issued by the Sierra Club of Canada (BC Chapter) in 2004, with seafood recommendations. SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

1

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:2

R c 2008 Monterey Bay Aquarium Plate 1.3 Chefs at Cooking for Solutions , Monterey Bay Aquarium ( Foundation. All rights reserved).

MSC funding sources, FY 2005–2006 7.60%

Corporates worldwide 8%

European statutory 6%

UK6.10% statutory 4% 3.70%

Other foundations ,1% Membership and Events

0% 2.30%

Other NGOs 0%

Major donor, membership and events 2% MSCI 5%

4.70%

MSCI

European foundations 2%

US foundations 47%

UK foundations 25%

Plate 4.1

The main sources of MSC operating funds.

2

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:2

Plate 4.2 The pelagic and Dover sole fishery in the UK town of Hasting uses the same traditional methods that they have used for centuries. The fishery was certified in 2005 and has successfully c Bob Mazzer). marketed its seafood locally using the MSC ecolabel as proof of sustainability (

Map key Metric tonnes of fish 1,000,000+ 10,000+

MSC status Certified

Countries where MSC products are available

Certified 06/07

10,00+ 1+

Plate 4.3

In assessment

The world distribution of MSC-ecolabelled or certified products and certified fisheries.

3

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

Plate 4.4

21:2

A sample of the MSC-labelled seafood products available from around the world.

4

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:2

Plate 7.1 The eyecatching logos and symbols used in the GSAB campaign to convey the simple message to chefs and seafood resellers that they should avoid purchasing swordfish.

Plate 7.2 Logos for the Caviar Emptor (US) and L’Autre Caviar (Europe) campaigns to help protect endangered sturgeon populations.

5

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:2

Plate 7.3 The Audubon seafood wallet card, the first seafood recommendation card, appeared as a tear-off in an advertisement for the Seafood Lover’s Almanac in the September/October 1999 issue of the Audubon Society’s magazine.

Plate 7.4 Sourcing Seafood – a source book of environmentally recommended supplies of seafood for purchasers and resellers, showing, as an example, the recommendations for spiny (rock) lobsters. (From Sourcing Seafood – A Professional’s Guide to Procuring Ocean-friendly Fish and Shellfish, 2nd ed., 2007.)

6

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:2

Plate 8.2 The dining setting in a live fish restaurant in the Sai Kung district, to the north of Hong Kong.

Plate 8.1 Plectropomus leopardus (Leopard Coral Trout), a highly prized and heavily traded species in the live fish trade, in a tank in a busy restaurant district in Hong Kong. This species is one of the fishes of choice for special occasions (Mother’s day, August Moon, Chinese New Year) because of its colour.

Plate 10.1 Eight brands of canned tuna offered for sale in a Perth (Australia) supermarket, each carrying a different form of ‘dolphinfriendly’ ecolabel. The identity of the standard owner and details of the verification system that supports the express or implied ‘dolphinsafe’ claims are not provided on the cans or the respective company websites.

7

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:2

Plate 12.1 Fishing operation for spiny lobsters in Baja California, Mexico.

Plate 12.2 legal size.

Fisher checking if the spiny lobster is

c Dan Plate 13.1 Catch of Alaska pollock. ( Lamont. Courtesy Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers.)

Total available tonnage from MSCcertified fisheries, 2006 (metric tons) 4%

3%

4%

Total Alaska pollock - 1 570 000

8%

Total Alaska salmon - 320380 5%

Other US fisheries - 111 675 South African hake - 195 000 13% 63%

New Zealand hoki - 100 000 North Sea herring -100 000 Other non-US - 67 183

Plate 13.2

Pollock as a percentage of fish eligible to carry the MSC ecolabel (2006).

8

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:54

Plate 13.3 Young’s Chip Shop product bearing the MSC ecolabel – MSC-certified Alaska pollock – the world’s largest whitefish fishery.

Plate 14.1 Trawlers in Cape Town harbour (From Stefano Ponte).

Plate 15.1 Fishing community in Ha Long Bay, c WWF-Canon/Meredith Lopuch). Vietnam (

Plate 15.2 Baja California spiny lobster, from c Meredith Lopuch). Bancho Chinchorro, Mexico (

1

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:54

Plate 17.1 The site of the former Hovden Cannery, now the Monterey Bay Aquarium, overlookc 2007 ing a US National Marine Sanctuary ( Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. All rights reserved).

Plate 15.3 Baja California spiny lobster fishery c Meredith certification event, La Paz, Mexico ( Lopuch).

R Plate 17.2 The Fishing for Solutions exhibit educated visitors from 1997 until 1999, raising awarec 1997 Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. All rights reserved). ness about bycatch and overfishing (

2

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:54

R Plate 17.3 Consumers using the Seafood Watch pocket guide at a local restaurant and at the fresh c 2007 Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. All rights reserved). fish counter (

3

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:54

R R Plate 17.4 The Vanishing Wildlife exhibit integrates the Seafood Watch pocket guide into its c 2007 Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. All rights reserved). messages about sea turtle bycatch (

R Plate 17.5 The Real Cost Cafe´  . Aquarium visitors ‘dine’ in a simulated cafe, ´ where they can choose various options that have different environmental impacts associated with seafood capture and producc 2007 Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. All rights reserved). tion (

4

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:54

Plate 17.6 Chefs celebrate and dish out susR tainable seafood at the Cooking for Solutions c 2007 Monterey Bay Aquarium Founevent ( dation. All rights reserved).

Plate 17.7 The pocket guide table of sustainability ranks and recommendation – showing the example of US pollock.

5

R c 2007 Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. All rights reserved). The 2007 National Seafood Watch pocket guide (

June 2, 2008

Plate 17.8

BLBK019-Ward 21:54

6

June 2, 2008

Plate 18.1 The New Zealand Best Fish Guide wallet card. (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, New Zealand, http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/bestfishguide/index.asp.)

BLBK019-Ward 21:54

7

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:54

Plate 19.1 Sample pages from the ‘Better Choice’ section, the ‘Think Twice’ section and the ‘Say No’ c Australian Marine Conservation section of Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide (2006 version) ( Society).

8

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Chapter 1

Ecolabelling of Seafood: The Basic Concepts Trevor J. Ward and Bruce Phillips

1.1 Introduction Ecolabelling provides consumers with the opportunity to make informed choices about the seafood they purchase, at the fresh fish bar, in supermarkets, cafes and restaurants. This chapter introduces the concept of ecolabelling of seafood, and discusses the basic elements of a successful seafood ecolabelling programme. The concepts are introduced through a series of topics that provide the background and expose some of the complexities and subtleties. Later chapters in the book provide more detail and perspectives from a broad range of the practitioners and scientists involved with the many aspects of seafood ecolabelling. This chapter also provides a selection of the various forms of seafood ecolabelling that currently appear in the marketplace, as a resource for consumers, researchers and students to explore the issues and questions in more detail. An earlier book – Ecolabelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? – was published in 2003 (Phillips et al. 2003), with two of the contributors here, B. Phillips and T. Ward, as the editors. It included a detailed description of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) process, case studies including Australia’s Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Alaska salmon fishery, the Thames Herring Drift-Net Fishery, New Zealand hoki fishery, and a number of perspectives from those with experience of the process of ecolabelling and the reactions to the ecolabelling concept of stakeholders in fisheries worldwide. It also included perspectives from fishery managers and those in the seafood industry about the early implementation of ecolabelling and its impacts. In preparing this new book we asked the contributors to concentrate on the developments since the publication of the first book in 2003. This book deals with seafood, both farmed and wild capture, and the content includes various forms of consumer programmes such as ecolabelling, guides and rating systems, with a worldwide focus. The contributors to this book have been invited to ‘tell their own story’, and so the following chapters represent a perspective from each author that relates to their own experience with seafood ecolabelling. While there is more than a decade of SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

1

BLBK019-Ward

2

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

experience with the main fisheries seafood ecolabelling programme (MSC) (May et al. 2003), it is only now that consumers and the wild-capture fishing industry are becoming fully aware of the actual impacts, costs and benefits of this form of seafood ecolabelling. The long lead time is partly because many of the potential environmental benefits that could flow from ecolabelling take a long time to be expressed, but also because it is only recently that there has been a substantial amount of ecolabelled seafood in the marketplace, and there is widespread industry and consumer attention. Nonetheless, after a decade of operations of the MSC and the recent rise of several other certification systems, it is now timely to consider the concepts in more detail, catalogue the experiences of the various participants and consider the future for seafood ecolabelling. The perspective of the book is global, and includes examples from both wildcapture fisheries and aquaculture ventures. The chapters are intended to present ecolabelling concepts and issues from a broad perspective so that seafood consumers, resellers, processors and fishers can be better informed about the role and quality of individual seafood ecolabels they may encounter and enable them to make more meaningful decisions about the costs and benefits of ecolabelled seafood and certification systems. In particular, each chapter provides an analysis of the topic in terms of the history and development, and identifies aspects that are considered to have been keys to successes. The various facets of seafood ecolabelling are presented within four themes in the book. Chapters 1–10 provide an overview of the global context for seafood ecolabelling and certification, including the interactions with global markets, national jurisdictions and ecosystem uncertainty. It is within this milieu that seafood certification and ecolabelling must operate to create market-based incentives for production and marketing of more sustainable seafood. The second theme – Chapters 11–15 – provides selected case studies of specific certification and ecolabelling experiences, concluding with a discussion of the somewhat unique circumstances of certification for small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Chapters 16–19 present four different certification initiatives that use ratings and guides to provide purchasing recommendations for seafood, seeking to achieve similar sustainable outcomes to those sought by the more formal ecolabelling programmes. The final theme – Chapters 20 and 21 – provides perspectives from an analysis of what our short experience with seafood market-based incentives predicts for the future of sustainable seafood and the health of ocean ecosystems.

1.2 Ecolabelling programmes An ecolabelling programme is a system used to create a market-based incentive to encourage products that can demonstrate they are produced in an ecologically sustainable manner. The incentive is created in the marketplace through the selective purchasing power of consumers, who preferentially purchase products marked

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

3

Credibility and appeal

Product endorsement

Consumer

Standard

Consumer preference and choice

Verification Incentive

Producer

Improved ecological sustainability

Environmental regulations, policies, plans and strategies; principles and guidelines; best practice; customary procedures

Figure 1.1 The market-based incentive system for encouraging improved environmental practices and sustainability in the capture and production of seafood. The model shows the main features of an ecolabelling or product recommendation system, with flow of the ‘incentive to act’, and the supporting or modifying elements.

with the ecolabel, and possibly pay a higher price for the ecolabelled product. This provides the seller and the ecolabelled product with a market advantage over nonecolabelled products. The price increment, or possibly the increased volume of sales of the ecolabelled product, preferentially rewards the producers of the more ecologically sustainable products over those producing products without ecolabels. This possibly reduces the sales and returns to producers of less sustainable products, reduces the value or marketability of non-ecolabelled products and creates an incentive for producers to change harvesting or farming practices to be more ecologically sustainable and improve their environmental practices (Figure 1.1; and see the more detailed discussion of sustainability in Chapters 5 and 10). An ecolabel is a mark, a logo, a label or a product endorsement affixed to a seafood product at the point of sale that implies to a purchaser that the product has been produced through ecologically sustainable procedures, and is from a source that is well managed. Ecolabels are usually applied to each individual seafood product to provide a product endorsement that is visible at the point of retail sale. The product endorsement from an ecolabel is designed to convey to the consumer the simple

BLBK019-Ward

4

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

message that they can confidently purchase the labelled product in preference to an unlabelled product if they wish to give their support to seafood produced in ways that have less ecological impact on fish stocks and the environment. The direct inference is that such products are more ecologically sustainable. An ecolabel may be applied to a product after it has been certified as being in compliance with the rules and criteria of an ecolabelling programme. Certification is the outcome of an assessment process that confirms (verifies) that a product complies with the sustainability standard and a set of criteria established by the incentive programme. A certification of compliance may be used as part of an ecolabel programme, and indeed a certificate may be issued, but not all certification systems lead to the award of an ecolabel. Some certification systems may not have any direct relationship to retail marketing issues, and may be used for purely industry or regulatory purposes (such as to demonstrate compliance with government requirements for safe food-processing procedures). So, while ecolabelling is normally based on some form of assessment process and a consequent certification, the process of assessment leading to a certification of compliance does not necessarily always lead to an ecolabel. The essential difference between certification and ecolabelling is the form of market-based incentive – influencing consumer purchases through the influence of the ecolabel at the point of retail sale and influencing purchasing patterns through the provision of other forms of product endorsement or buying recommendation. Buying guides and ratings are closely related to ecolabels, and while they constitute a different form of product endorsement, like ecolabels they also act to influence consumer-purchasing patterns and are designed to create market-based incentives. Buying guides and ratings provide information about a product to consumers or to resellers through advertising and seafood awareness programmes, using such tools as wallet/purse cards, brochures and websites, where ‘buy’ or ‘don’t buy’ advice is usually provided. While these product recommendations are not normally affixed to the actual seafood product at the point of sale (and may not be supported by producers or resellers of such products), such guides and ratings systems nonetheless are also designed to influence the consumer’s choice of products in relation to ecological and environmental sustainability issues. Buying guides and ratings are not necessarily based on the outcomes of a certification system, or even on an explicit assessment process. Primarily designed as visible product endorsements, in some cases exposure of the underpinning decision process may not be considered to be important, with the guide standing mainly on the credibility and reputation of the recommending organisation. In some systems (such as discussed in Chapter 16) the buying recommendation may be based on a formal and extensive underpinning decision process. Seafood recommendations for consumers based on environmental and ecological considerations were first developed in the mid-1990s, and the first seafood recommendation card for consumer use was issued in 1999 in the US Audubon Society’s magazine (Plate 7.3). Ecolabelling programmes are voluntary instruments – fisheries or aquaculture ventures can choose to submit their products for compliance assessment to

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

5

determine if their products can carry the ecolabel. The voluntary nature of ecolabelling is an important aspect of consumer appeal, because this infers that products that do not meet the sustainability standard would not be submitted by the producers for assessment, and hence do not carry the ecolabel. Consumers may interpret this as meaning that only the ecolabelled seafood products available in their marketplace are indeed produced in a sustainable manner. However, this inference is only true if all seafood products have equal access to the voluntary process of assessment and certification, and if the process of compliance assessment is comprehensive and is applied equally across all the products submitted for assessment. This is not always the case because first, the assessment and certification process may be costly and preclude smaller or less profitable fisheries from participation in many ecolabelling programmes, and second, because different ecolabelling programmes have different ways of determining if a product complies with the ecolabel standard and the standards themselves may differ between programmes. The different interpretations of ecological sustainability, and the different value systems in the various programmes, mean that a product endorsement from one ecolabelling programme may not carry with it the same inference of sustainability as a product endorsement from another programme. One of the central problems is determining which aspects of sustainability an ecolabel will represent. Seafood ecolabelling is focused on the environmental and ecological aspects of sustainability, but even so, there are many issues that may be considered within an ecolabelling programme. In assessing an individual fishery or aquaculture farm, the findings of a broadly based certification system (covering many ecological aspects of seafood capture and production) may differ from that of a more narrowly based system that covers only a limited set of the issues (such as the dolphin-safe ecolabel for tuna products) because of the different scope of issues considered. And further, it has proven difficult in independent third-party certifications (see below) to ensure that the standard and criteria are always consistently interpreted in the same way by different certification companies. These inconsistencies have resulted in biased outcomes in some cases, and this raises the prospect that some products might be given an ecolabel that assumes a different standard of sustainability from another product that carries an ecolabel, even when issued from the same programme (see Chapter 10). Voluntary submission of products for ecolabelling carries with it the responsibility for meeting the various costs of conducting the compliance assessment and meeting any conditions or corrective actions that may be required to keep the product certified. These costs include the cost of the certification companies in conducting the assessment, the cost of preparing and presenting data and information about the products that match the requirements of the ecolabel programme and the ongoing costs of dealing with conditions and the costs of verification of continuing compliance. While third-party assessments of compliance are the most rigorous form of compliance assessment, the cost is much higher than for a less rigorous type of assessment, such as an industry self-assessment. This high level of costs of securing an ecolabel may deter low-profit margin and small-turnover

BLBK019-Ward

6

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

ventures from submitting their products for assessments, and there are significant concerns that only large industrial fisheries can afford to secure third-party assessments and high-quality ecolabels (see, e.g., Chapter 14). This of course does not mean that small fisheries or aquaculture ventures do not necessarily produce highly sustainable products, only that they cannot afford to demonstrate their sustainability through an ecolabel from a major ecolabelling programme. This also has implications for trade between developed and developing countries (see Chapter 9) and for the products from small-scale and community fisheries (see Chapter 15). This matter of the cost of the assessment and verification system has often been raised (Deere 1999, Wessells et al. 2001; Chapter 8) as a discriminatory factor that can be used to lock out both fisheries and aquaculture products from developing countries and small-scale ventures from the developed world. Indeed, some commentators consider that the expensive third-party assessment systems are verging on replacement of national regulatory systems by imposing a more powerful (market-based) private sector set of management measures that are beyond the control of national governments, and transcend the more usual participatory and locally relevant management systems (Steinberg 1999, O’Rourke 2006). However, others consider that such private sector (so-called ‘non-state’) ecolabel systems can only succeed by working in partnership with government or community-led management measures, and so there is little risk of the ‘non-state’ systems replacing the ‘state’ systems (Janen 2007) (and see Section 1.5 below). Despite these issues, and a range of other concerns, a voluntary ecolabelling system encourages the development of ventures that produce more sustainable products, and it is assumed that it simultaneously discourages the continuing marketing of the products produced or caught using less desirable procedures. Both these assertions remain to be tested and confirmed in practice, and at scales that will have meaningful beneficial impacts on the world’s ocean ecosystems. The increasing sales of ecolabelled products is a meaningless measure of improving fish stocks and reducing environmental impacts unless the ecolabel is tightly linked to improved fishing or aquaculture practices. Without this, ecolabelling may be considered to be no more than an invention of the marketplace to enhance price, market share or market control for specific products. Nonetheless, this contrast between the best- and worst-performing seafood ventures is an important part of the effectiveness of the market-based incentive created by ecolabelling, because it helps to create and maintain the distinctiveness of the better-performing products and gives consumers the opportunity to express their preference and purchase the more sustainable products. This is the engine-room of ecolabelling – where the market-pull is created, without which the increment of incentive to achieve higher standards of sustainability cannot be realised. However, the true effectiveness of ecolabelling systems in improving ocean ecosystems, including recovering stocks of overfished species, remains to be confirmed. Indeed, deciding if ecolabelling is working, in the sense of delivering ecological sustainability outcomes, is a complex problem covering many aspects of the seafood business and the science of

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

7

biodiversity conservation and management (see Chapter 10). In any case, while seafood ecolabelling has been operational for more than a decade, it may still be too early to be able to actually measure any significant reduction in impacts on ocean ecosystems, although Agnew et al. 2006 identified some types of effects that may be detectable from the MSC programme. Ecolabels are designed and propagated to reduce ecological impacts and improve the ecological-friendliness of practices used in production, harvesting or growing of products, with a view to ultimately increasing the sustainability of all products across all the market. To achieve this, they must create ‘market-pull’ through differential appeal to consumers who are sensitive to the impact on sustainability inferred by the product endorsement of the ecolabel. The market-pull is created through establishing the credibility of the product and its ecolabel endorsement with potentially sensitive consumers, and a credible differential from competing products in the same marketplace.

1.3 How ecolabelling works Ecolabels are normally applied as labels or tags, such as a recognisable logo on a retail product pack. Where individual products are small, or where they are normally marketed in a combined or processed pack (such as a canned product), the label may be applied to the pack rather than the individual product itself (Plate 1.1). The basic approach to seafood certification and ecolabelling implemented by the MSC programme has been derived from established practice in several other sectors (and specifically timber – the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)) and adapted to suit the needs of the seafood sustainability issues and the industry. A number of subsequent certification systems have used the MSC as the model for a policy framework and implementation system (such as the Australian Sustainable Fisheries Guidelines; see below), and to that extent the MSC must be considered to have created a significant influence in seafood sustainability. The practical application of certification and ecolabelling in the MSC programme is described in detail in the series of articles by Botsford (2003), Chaffee (2003), Chaffee et al. (2003), May et al. (2003), Phillips (2003) and Ward (2003), and updated in Chapter 4 of this book. These contributions recognise and describe the potential of, and the many difficulties involved with, seafood certification and ecolabelling. Particularly important obstacles to be overcome were recognised as the lack of established precedents or well-proven models of global governance directly relevant to seafood ecolabelling, the balance to be achieved between making a programme popular with the industry and consumers versus the achievement of difficult and unpopular changes required in fishery practices to reduce impacts on the environment and on fish stocks themselves, and the delicate advocacy required to build a worldwide constituency for ecolabelling with actual costs and theoretical benefits within a highly competitive and price-sensitive industry sector. A key feature of the difficulties is

BLBK019-Ward

8

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

that under the voluntary model of ecolabelling, the direct and indirect costs for achieving ecolabelled seafood products are borne by those who do not necessarily reap many of the benefits. This matter of establishing the exact nature of both the costs and the benefits is fundamental to success in the business model of voluntary ecolabelling because it is the basic driver of the market-based incentive system. In situations where the harvesting of fish from the wild, or where the operation of aquaculture facilities, does not fully recognise and eliminate the environmental impacts of their activities, the price structure for their products does not include the full price of the management of any related environmental, socio-economic or cultural impacts. This is a major factor in fisheries management systems, and the ‘externalisation’ (or the converse, the lack of ‘internalisation’) of such costs so that they are not reflected in product pricing is well recognised as a major weakness of many modern fisheries management systems (e.g. Gardiner & Viswanathan 2004). This situation is exacerbated where governance systems are weak, leading to limited management effectiveness, and where fishery product prices are controlled by external factors, such as distorted global trade patterns, competition tactics or regional/global commodity trading, and become divorced from their true cost of production. Individual countries and fisheries may use normal economic instruments (such as inclusion of the costs of environmental remediation in fishery costs) to ensure that product price reflects the true cost of production, but this may become difficult to implement in situations of trade globalisation, where products are sourced globally on price alone and where some countries do not internalise the environmental impacts of fishing into export product prices. Market-based incentives such as ecolabelling may fulfil two positive roles in relation to the pricing systems for seafood products. First, they may, depending on the standard established within the assessment system, encourage fisheries and aquaculture industries to internalise all the relevant environmental management costs, so that market prices increase to properly reflect the true cost of production. There are of course other matters contributing to product price (such as fuel, labour, infrastructure costs and transport), but in highly environmentally destructive fisheries the costs of moving into compliance with an ecolabelling standard will be high. The products of such fisheries should become more expensive than equivalent but more sustainable products that also hold the ecolabel, potentially driving consumer preferences towards the alternative sustainable product. The cost of bringing a fishery into compliance with the ecolabelling standard therefore becomes a disincentive for an environmentally destructive fishery to attempt to comply. Both the direct cost and the product price increment this would require may be expected to reduce the willingness of such fisheries to submit for ecolabelling assessment, and the more weakly a fishery considers that it is performing, the more sensitive it will be to the standing costs of ecolabelling assessment. This is the cost inertia that a fishery must overcome to submit for ecolabelling, and the more environmentally destructive a fishery is, the greater the cost inertia and the price

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

9

increment that will need to be imposed if the fishery becomes ecolabelled. Either such fisheries will not submit for ecolabelling and so be identified as weak environmental performers, or they will suffer a price disadvantage in the market and potentially loss of market share, in both cases working to reduce environmental impacts. Second, through creating a market-pull by consumers, ecolabelling programmes may enhance the price consumers are willing to pay for ecolabelled products. This may in turn tend to increase production of labelled products. This will only be beneficial if the ecolabel programme is designed to assess and verify that the industry management systems are robust and can apply appropriate controls in response to an increased demand for ecolabelled product. On the opposing side, there may also be some perverse impacts of ecolabelling. By internalising the costs of achieving a specific level of sustainability and creating a higher price for ecolabelled products, the price for competing products that are not ecolabelled (and may be much less sustainable) may also rise to maintain a small margin of price advantage between the labelled and unlabelled products. This essentially offers a ‘free ride’ for the competing products in any markets where ecolabelling is considered to have a price effect, because in most seafood markets, the ecolabelled product only accounts for a small proportion of seafood sold. Although 22 fisheries are certified and about 60 further fisheries are engaged in the MSC certification and ecolabelling programme, this currently accounts for only about 7% of all wild-caught seafood sales (Chapter 4). Any increase in price for nonlabelled products may result in increased levels of production (including increased pressure on wild stocks) from the less sustainable ventures. Minimising the costs associated with ecolabelling assessments is one way of reducing the incentive for non-compliance because it reduces the price increment that needs to be passed on to consumers to cover compliance costs alone (Wessels et al. 2001), although this is not necessarily the only basis for setting prices. Other perverse effects include the ‘shield’ effect (Sutton 2003) as used in Australia’s Western Rock Lobster Fishery, where the achievement of MSC certification is used by the fishery managers to prevent the introduction of marine reserves in Western Australia’s waters, using the argument that the fishery is sustainable and so reserves are not needed to protect biodiversity and would unfairly affect the industry. The benefits for fishery industries from participating in an ecolabelling programme include the potential for:

r increased price, market share or market access, created by the market-pull for more sustainable products;

r increased industry standing for ecolabelled products and related products and industries;

r increased attractiveness for investment capital; and r increased internal cohesion in the sector, responding to the common perception of benefits flowing from ecolabelling.

BLBK019-Ward

10

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

The costs of ecolabelling for an industry can be substantial and may apply at several different levels in the governance and labelling system, including the cost of:

r assembly and coordination of data and information specifically required for compliance assessment;

r initial certification and ongoing verification of compliance with the ecolabelling standard;

r protection against abuse of the labels to protect competing national or industry trade interests;

r organising the industry into a cohesive group to be able to engage with the ecolabelling programme and to effectively maintain the compliance conditions;

r the costs of establishing a secure chain of custody for the product from the producer to the consumer; and

r the costs of advertising and awareness campaigns to specifically capitalise on the consumer appeal of the ecolabel. The MSC reassessment of the Alaska salmon fishery, the New Zealand hoki fishery and Australia’s Western Rock Lobster Fishery has taken at least 2 years in each case, and in the case of the Alaska salmon, has cost US$250 000 (Hedlund 2007). Costs of this order of magnitude are clearly a major impost on any fishery and are inevitably likely to be passed on to the consumer. This level of transaction cost is a major impediment for smaller fisheries, and for producers with low margins that may already be under other cost pressures, costs of this order could effectively prevent their access to major programmes like the MSC.

1.4 Types of ecolabels Generally speaking, ecolabels are one part of a family of environmental labelling systems, each of which may result in the certification of a product. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has defined three main types of environmental labelling, and ecolabels generally fall into the category of the ISO Type I labels (Table 1.1). The ISO classification system (Table 1.1) does not provide, or impose, specific performance standards, but rather provides a uniform framework within which a systematic system of labelling can be developed and implemented within an industry sector. However, seafood ecolabelling programmes are based on performance standards, and products can be classified based on compliance with the standard, as well as on the processes used for setting the performance standard and for determining compliance of products with that standard. This provides for a widely used classification of seafood ecolabelling programmes into three main types (after Deere 1999) based on the characteristics of the sustainability standard and the compliance assessment process:

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

11

(a) First-party labelling schemes: These are typically established by individual producers or resellers based on their own product standards, and can cover criteria related to specific environmental issues, food quality and health issues. This form of ecolabelling is usually ‘self-declaration’, and can be considered to be an ISO Type II environmental labelling system. (b) Second-party labelling schemes: These are typically established by industry associations for members’ products, and the criteria are determined by the organisation. Verification of compliance is normally conducted by certification procedures internal to the industry or association, or by use of external certifiers, and may be either ISO Type I or Type III. (c) Third-party labelling schemes: These are usually created by organisations external to the relevant industry sector, and therefore carry a perceived level of independence. The owner of the labelling scheme usually sets the criteria and awards a label to products that are independently verified (through an certification process) to comply with the criteria. Third-party schemes are typically considered to be the most robust form of ecolabelling, because of the independence of the criteria and the verification process from commercial influences, and are usually of the ISO Type I form. The primary theme that these three ecolabelling systems hold in common is the expressed intention and the common purpose of creating market demand for products that are, relative to other products, caught, grown or prepared for consumption in a more environmentally friendly way. The primary differences between the three types of schemes relate to the standards and criteria used to determine if a product complies, and the independence and robustness of the process of verification of compliance – determining that a product correctly complies with the standard and criteria. Table 1.1

ISO categories of environmental labelling systems.

Type I

Voluntary, multicriteria third-party programmes that award environmental labels to products meeting a set of predetermined requirements

Environmental labels and declarations – Type I environmental labelling – principles and procedures (ISO 14024: ISO 1999a)

Type II

Self-declared environmental claims made by manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers or anyone else likely to benefit from such claims

Environmental labels and declarations – self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling) (ISO 14021: ISO 1999b)

Type III

Declarations that provide quantified environmental information about products, using predetermined parameters based on the ISO life-cycle assessment series of standards. Additional environmental information, such as the impact on biodiversity, hazard and risk assessment on human health and the environment may be given. May be verified by a third party

Environmental labels and declarations – Type III environmental declarations – principles and procedures (ISO 14025: ISO 2006)

BLBK019-Ward

12

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

There are increasing levels of independence from commercial influences in the standard setting and in the product verification from the first to the second and the third-party systems, but there is nothing in this classification of systems to infer that a third-party system of compliance assessment necessarily means that the environmental standard is higher than in a first-party system. Nonetheless, firstparty systems typically set low standards that are easily achieved, and for consumers, the gradation from first- to third-party schemes broadly infers increasing levels of sustainability, robustness of compliance assessment and reliability of the product endorsement as expressed in the product ecolabel or endorsement. First-party certification systems involve the development of standards and criteria within a company, with a compliance assessment procedure carried out internally (such as by a company-appointed assessor). Such internal assessments are typically carried out to assess compliance to a standard and criteria that have been developed and internally agreed by the company as being relevant to the needs of an ecolabel for the products being assessed. Such internal standards may reflect specific issues of sustainability, but they would normally be set at a level of performance that would enable the venture to comply with the standard most of the time, since otherwise the application of the ecolabel would put some of the venture’s products at a disadvantage, and possibly with significant commercial implications. In the seafood industry, such internal standards, while meeting present-day commercial operational requirements and criteria, may not necessarily be in accord with either government or community expectations for the environmental impacts of the fisheries or the aquaculture operations. In addition, since the process of conducting the compliance assessment is not normally exposed to either peer review or public critique in first-party certification systems, the compliance assessment process is not exposed to independent verification. Such systems are usually considered to be self-assessment systems (ISO Type II labelling), and are not renowned for their robustness in terms of achieving major improvements in ecological sustainability. The main purpose and value of such systems is to provide an internal audit mechanism for reducing the gap between the best- and worst-performing products/ventures in terms of sustainability, without drawing a lot of market attention to the issues, which may carry significant adverse implications for poorly performing individual operators or aberrant ventures and for the sector as a whole. The internal seafood sustainability assessment system operated by Ahold provides a useful example of a first-party assessment system (Box 1.1).

Box 1.1

The Ahold Sustainable Seafood Initiative

Ahold is an international group of quality supermarket and foodservice operators based in the US and Europe, with headquarters in Amsterdam (www.ahold.com). Ahold has retail operations in the US and Europe, serving over 2 million customers every week through its supermarket chains Albert Heijn, ICA,

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

13

Hypernova, Albert, RIMI, GIANT, Stop & Shop, Tops and its US foodservice operations. Total sales in 2006 were US$77.5 billion – ranking as the sixth largest retailer globally. Overfishing currently threatens many marine species, but keeping fisheries sustainable has significant environmental and economic implications. The best way to ensure quality and sustainability is to control the entire process from boat to throat – which means looking for ways to manage the points in the value chain before the product reaches the stores. Ahold companies have developed a variety of approaches, depending on the fish species they sell and the specific needs in their individual markets. As a part of general sourcing initiatives, Ahold has developed specialist teams with extensive expertise within specific product categories, such as shrimp, whitefish and salmon. These enable Ahold to combine work on collaborative seafood sourcing initiatives with Corporate Social Responsibility concerns. Known as the Ahold Sustainable Seafood Initiative, the programme is a step toward ensuring that seafood products are sourced in a sustainable way and make the most of Ahold’s efforts to protect the future of fisheries. One of Ahold’s most important initiatives in fisheries has been the ChoiceCatch project. Working with the New England Aquarium in Boston, the US Ahold companies developed ChoiceCatch to address issues linked to the fishing industry’s impact on the world’s oceans (see Chapter 16). In addition to ChoiceCatch, the Ahold US companies sell MSC-certified Alaska pollock and Alaska salmon products. In Europe, the Ahold chain ICA also promotes sustainable fish sourcing, focusing on dolphin-safe tuna, tiger prawns and cod. In particular, ICA Sweden is taking action to address the environmental impacts of prawn production, which can damage mangrove swamps that serve as ‘nurseries’ for many fish species. The only prawn product ICA carries in its central assortment is the one approved by Naturland, one of the major certifying organisations for organic produce in Europe. ICA Sweden also refrains from actively marketing prawns. Because of the critical condition of cod stocks in the Baltic Sea, ICA does not buy cod from this region for its private label products. Instead, the company offers frozen cod caught by line and hook in the northeast Atlantic, as this method causes less damage to the ocean floor and reduces bycatch compared to fishing with nets. To ensure it sources cod from well-managed stocks, ICA recently joined a new industry initiative aiming to prevent illegally caught fish from being sold in the Swedish and Norwegian market. In addition, ICA launched three private label fish gratin products that are MSC certified, a first in the Swedish market. Albert Heijn works with preferred suppliers, with whom the company has agreements covering different aspects of commercial fishing and aquaculture, and does not sell plaice and sole during periods of mating and spawning. The company obtains a large amount of its fish, including cod and redfish, from

BLBK019-Ward

14

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

Iceland, which makes significant investments to guarantee that the fish populations in its waters are well managed. For example, cod from Iceland are caught with line and hook. Albert Heijn contributes to better salmon-farming methods by having all its suppliers certified according to GLOBALGAP (see Chapter 6). The company also sells MSC-certified Alaska pollock fish fingers and MSCcertified sole. By working with preferred suppliers that demonstrate a commitment to these priorities, Ahold knows where the fish comes from and how harvesting affects the environment. Ahold intends to exert a proactive and constructive influence on the seafood industry, to continually make incremental improvements and to help their suppliers to do the same. From www.ahold.com. Second-party certification systems typically adopt an industry-wide standard and criteria, with assessment procedures that may be either internal or independent, but are restricted to assessment of compliance of the venture or group of ventures with the industry-set standard. The owner of the standard (typically an industry association, a group of companies or sometimes a government) will determine the standard and the criteria, and arrange for (usually) independent assessments of compliance with the standard. These assessments are not often made public, and although the standard and criteria may be publicly available, the verification process for individual products may not be freely available. As with first-party systems, the standard and criteria in second-party systems may be established so that the majority of the members of the group that owns the standard will comply, for the same (usually commercial) reasons as in first-party systems. The assessment system operated by the Australian government for assessment and accreditation of export fisheries (http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/ fisheries/publications/guidelines.html) is an example of a second-party certification system (Box 1.2). In this system, the assessment process has been developed with broad consultation and is widely available, and the standard has been recently upgraded (2007) to be more available for public scrutiny, but the verification of compliance is a self-assessment process.

Box 1.2 Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries in Australia To satisfy the Australian Commonwealth Government requirements for a demonstrably ecologically sustainable fishery, the fishery or fisheries (if a species is caught in more than one fishery), must operate under a management regime that meets Principles 1 and 2. The management regime must take into account

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

15

arrangements in other jurisdictions, and adhere to arrangements established under Australian laws and international agreements. The management regime does not have to be a formal statutory fishery management plan as such, and may include non-statutory management arrangements or management policies and programmes. The regime should:

r be documented, publicly available and transparent; r be developed through a consultative process providing opportunity to all interested and affected parties, including the general public;

r ensure that a range of expertise and community interests are involved in r r r r r r

individual fishery management committees and during the stock assessment process; be strategic, containing objectives and performance criteria by which the effectiveness of the management arrangements is measured; be capable of controlling the level of harvest in the fishery using input and/or output controls; contain the means of enforcing critical aspects of the management arrangements; provide for the periodic review of the performance of the fishery management arrangements and the management strategies, objectives and criteria; be capable of assessing, monitoring and avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse impacts on the wider marine ecosystem in which the target species lives and the fishery operates; and require compliance with relevant threat abatement plans, recovery plans, the National Policy on Fisheries Bycatch, and bycatch action strategies developed under that policy.

The management regime must also comply with any relevant international or regional management regime to which Australia is a party. Compliance with the international or regional regime does not mean Australia cannot place upon the management of the Australian component of the fishery management controls that are more stringent than those required through the international or regional regime. Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing, or for those stocks that are over-fished, the fishery must be conducted such that there is a high degree of probability the stock(s) will recover. Objective 1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that maintain ecologically viable stock levels at an agreed point or range, with acceptable levels of probability.

BLBK019-Ward

16

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

Objective 2. Where the fished stock(s) are below a defined reference point, the fishery will be managed to promote recovery to ecologically viable stock levels within nominated time frames. Principle 2 Fishing operations should be managed to minimise their impact on the structure, productivity, function and biological diversity of the ecosystem. Objective 1. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten bycatch species. Objective 2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that avoids mortality of, or injuries to, endangered, threatened or protected species and avoids or minimises impacts on threatened ecological communities. Objective 3. The fishery is conducted in a manner that minimises the impact of fishing operations on the ecosystem generally. From http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/publications/ guidelines.html.

Third-party certification systems are based on standards set external to the industry or ventures being assessed, and typically are derived from extensive industry, government and community consultation. The process of assessment of compliance of ventures/products with the standard is carried out by third-party certifiers who are independent of the standard owner and of the ventures being assessed, and usually are formally accredited to conduct the assessment of compliance by the standard owner. Third-party certification systems also normally have a well-developed chain-of-custody assessment processes to ensure that there is no mixing of certified and non-certified product in the supply chain or in the marketplace. The standard used in third-party systems will typically be a compromise between the best sustainability performance expected by the most discerning consumers and the capacity of a significant number of producers to meet the standard. In this case, the standard will normally be set so that at least some producers can meet the standard, otherwise very little ecolabelled product would be available in the marketplace, denying the opportunity for a market-based incentive to develop. The best example of a third-party certification in seafood ecolabelling is the MSC (May et al. 2003; see Chapter 4). A further important feature that distinguishes individual ecolabelling programmes is the focus (purpose) of the programme. Some programmes focus on only one sustainability issue, while others are much broader, dealing with many or even all aspects of ecological sustainability. Some labelling programmes

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

17

also include other factors such as health impacts as well as sustainability issues. The narrowly focused programmes (such as dolphin-safe tuna – www.earthisland. org/dolphinSafeTuna or turtle-safe shrimp – www.seaturtles.org/press release2. cfm?pressID=7) tend to be specific to one issue, and will normally relate to only one seafood product or a few closely related seafood species. Such programmes are potentially easier to implement and are more effective than those attempting to cover all aspects of sustainability. The evidence suggests that such narrowly focused programmes may have been effective for improving environmental practices although the extent of such improvements may be debatable (e.g. Brown 2005). Nonetheless, questions could be raised about other aspects of the sustainability of tuna and shrimp fishing, and the narrowly focused ecolabelling programmes probably have little impact on these other issues. The oldest operating seafood ecolabel is the ‘dolphin-safe’ label, applied to wild-catch tuna fishing (Teisl et al. 2002). This ecolabel applies only to fishing practices that are designed to reduce or eliminate interactions between tuna fishing and dolphins so as to provide an assurance to consumers that the tuna (usually canned) has been caught in a way that is least damaging for dolphins. Concerns about the interaction between tuna fisheries and dolphins emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, when purse-seine fishing for yellowfin tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific was considered by US government authorities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and consumers to be catching excessive number of dolphins as bycatch (Teisl et al. 2002, Brown 2005). The US public and government concern about dolphin bycatch led to the voluntary adoption of a ‘dolphin-safe’ ecolabel, according to a standard and criteria established by the Earth Island Institute, a California-based NGO. This was followed by government regulation in the US (the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act 1990) to reinforce the adoption of the voluntary ecolabel for both US and overseas-sourced tuna sold in the US market. The US regulation required that no drift nets are used and no dolphins encircled or killed by purse-seine nets in order to catch the labelled tuna (Brown 2005). Similar standards are now applied to all wildcaught tuna products, and the dolphin-safe ecolabel is applied to tuna products from many regions of the world for sale into global markets, even for tuna sourced from regions where there is only a slight prospect of dolphin interactions. The labelling of tuna products from fisheries with no history of negative dolphin impacts (such as skipjack tuna in the UK) confirms that tuna producers have accepted the market impact of ecolabelling for the purposes of dealing with this specific ecological issue and the ready acceptance by consumers of this ecolabel in the marketplace (Teisl et al. 2002). Almost all tuna are now thought to be caught using dolphin-safe techniques, and these ‘safe’ fishing practices are most likely to be well entrenched in the global tuna fishing industry (Brown 2005). Nonetheless, without ongoing strict verification procedures that are normally the hallmark of well-managed fisheries, it would be easy for fishing practices to return to ‘dolphin-deadly’ ways in the hands of

BLBK019-Ward

18

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

unscrupulous operators or where tuna is intended for non-discerning markets. It is unclear, for example, how the distant-water fleets of various island nations fishing in both sovereign and international waters of the South Pacific ensure that only dolphin-safe procedures are used in catching tuna destined for the US market. There are few independent checking systems (such as independent observer programmes on fishing vessels) in some parts of the world, and so given the commercial incentives, it is entirely possible that tuna fishing continues to have some level of dolphin impacts in some regions of the world. The broad-scale prohibition on the use of purse-seine nets to deliberately target tuna and dolphin aggregations has nonetheless probably resulted in a major reduction in dolphin mortalities in the eastern Pacific Ocean (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/intlagree/aidcp.htm). The evolution of the dolphin-safe label has been tortuous, and some argue that in the process of expanding the label to encompass more of the tuna fisheries, the standard required of a ‘dolphin-safe’ fishing operation has been reduced (Teisl et al. 2002). The influence of industry forces and the international trade issues appears to have resulted, in 2005 (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/intlagree/aidcp.htm), in a US government proposal to redefine the dolphin-safe standard based on a more relaxed definition of acceptable fishing practices (www.ictsd.org/biores/0301-23/story1.htm). The US government’s ‘dolphin-safe’ ecolabel currently does not permit the use of dolphin-encircling nets (http://dolphinsafe.gov/ttvp.htm) and there is a random sampling programme to confirm that all canned tuna sold in the US conforms to this requirement, irrespective of which form of ecolabel the cans may carry. The original form of the dolphin-safe label (www.earthisland.org/ dolphinSafeTuna/) and others (e.g. the Flipper Seal of Approval – www.earthtrust. org/fsa.html) appear to have established higher standards and more assurance for consumers. So today it is not entirely clear what the generic dolphin-safe label stands for, nor how consumers can be reassured that all tuna that is labelled ‘dolphin-safe’ is caught with only minimal impact on dolphin populations. Given this variety of different standards, now consumers need to be very well informed about the details of each specific form of the dolphin-safe ecolabel in order to choose tuna caught in a manner most friendly to dolphin populations. Some of the many different ecolabels applying to seafood in the global marketplace are shown in Appendix 1.1.

1.5 Ecolabelling governance Ecolabels, ratings and buying guides for seafood are voluntary market-based incentive systems, and there is no overall global governance system in place to manage such systems or to provide frameworks leading to uniformity of structure, function or probity and accountability. There are several umbrella systems that have been designed to set the overall parameters for ecolabelling and certification systems more generally for a range of products and services outside seafood, which

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

19

individual seafood certification programmes may choose to be consistent with. But the more general umbrella systems provide only superficial overall structure with limited relevance to seafood and the specific issues of natural resource management. The three main institutions contributing to governance structures for ecolabelling are ISO, GEN and ISEAL, and in addition, the FAO has established a set of guidelines directly relevant to seafood ecolabelling (see Chapter 3). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is the largest standardsetting body and its technical committee (TC 207) has helped to develop principles and environmental standards (the so-called 14 000 series – or revised as the 14 020 environmental management series; ISO 1998). However, there has been some criticism that ‘in the design of some schemes either governments, some sectors of the industry or environmental interest groups have not had the opportunity to express their interests’ (FAO 1998, Deere 1999). It is worth noting that the standards are largely process oriented and do not provide individual performance measures against which environmental changes could be estimated. The International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL) and the Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN) are representative institutions, similar to industry associations, for the main private sector labelling organisations. They develop policies and frameworks of interest to their members on the various aspects of ecolabelling, and maintain a communications network amongst the various private sector entities. For example, ISEAL has recently completed an analysis of the likely effectiveness of evaluation systems used to assess the effect of certification, and has proposed an ISEAL approach to this notoriously difficult problem (Hassell 2005). These various governance systems discussed above provide only limited specific guidance for the development and implementation of seafood ecolabelling systems. Therefore, seafood ecolabels, ratings and guides are probably best considered as creatures of the marketplace, where the various pressures of stakeholders, governments, the industry and consumers are interpreted into functional ecolabelling systems. However, without any clear form of strict global governance that may reassure consumers of a consistency of approach and outcomes, the success or failure of any specific ecolabel programme will be determined by the ability of each programme to create benefits for seafood producers, markets and, most importantly, for consumers. Although they may choose to adhere to various aspects of one or more of the general ecolabelling frameworks, this alone is unlikely to have a big impact on consumer acceptance of any specific ecolabelling programme. Adherence to the basic properties of one of the widely accepted frameworks (such as the ISO, ISEAL and FAO frameworks) will probably assist with acceptance of individual ecolabelling programmes by governments and by the private sector, but this will confer only limited additional credibility in the eyes of consumers. In the final analysis, market acceptance and impact of an ecolabel programme will probably determine the success of any specific ecolabelling programme (see Chapter 10). Thus, consumers will have the final say in how such programmes

BLBK019-Ward

20

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

should be designed and implemented through the balancing forces applied in the marketplace. Just as there is no overall global governance or framework system for seafood ecolabelling, there is little or no coordination or consistency of terminology and concepts amongst the various ecolabelling, rating or guide programmes. For example, probably the most basic issue – sustainability – is not an agreed and well-defined concept (see Chapter 10), and it is interpreted in many different ways by the various programmes. This is compounded to a large extent by the different interpretations of sustainability by different cultures, countries and governments. This also leads to a more practical problem – even the basic concepts may be difficult to translate into other languages, reflecting different cultural perspectives. This diversity of interpretation of the basic concepts has created the situation where the product endorsements of some programmes have a different meaning from very similar endorsements applied in other programmes. This may easily confuse consumers, and ultimately degrade the value of the product endorsement system through lack of acceptance of the truth of the claims about products (see below). In recognition of this problem, the MSC is engaged in public discussion and input to the definition of a ‘sustainable fishery’ through its Quality and Consistency Project (Chapter 4). Owners of ecolabel programmes each have a responsibility to design, develop and maintain a programme that has sufficient credibility and resourcing to be selfsustaining. For this to occur, the programmes must have independent sources of funding and staffing resources to underpin their governance systems, or to have a resourcing support system related to sales of seafood products, or be linked to organisations prepared to fund ecolabelling programmes for the purpose of improving the sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture operations. A comprehensive and effective ecolabelling programme addressing sustainability issues in aquaculture and wild-capture fisheries should be accountable and include at least these basic elements:

r a clearly defined scope and set of rules, practices and operational interpretations for the conduct of the assessment and certification process;

r a clearly defined and public sustainability standard against which the fishery or aquaculture venture is assessed against, including both the parameters and a measurable benchmark level encoded into the standard; r a consultation standard for the involvement of stakeholders and public reporting of the processes and procedures used by the certifier to assess and determine compliance with the sustainability standard; r a clear and well-defined process for determining the security of the chain of custody of the certified and labelled product; r a clear and well-defined process for public reporting on the accountability of the certifier and the assessment process, and the accreditation/verification of certifiers;

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

21

r indicative estimates about the likely costs of certification, including the preparatory processes, the compliance assessments and maintenance costs;

r procedures to ensure consistency with international, national and community standards and legal requirements; and

r procedures to account for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and other illegal activities that may affect achievement of sustainability as expressed in the standard. One of the most pervasive and intractable governance issues relates to the matter of state versus non-state control of seafood ecolabelling systems. When governments apply marketing controls and set the rules within which private sector systems must operate, then they usually do so to reflect the best interest of the nation concerned. However, where systems are established that transcend national boundaries and create rules that have no direct parallels within national or international jurisdictions, concerns may arise about the motives behind such systems and the potential lack of accountability created by such private transnational control and management of natural resources (Constance & Bonanno 1999, Gulbrandsen 2006). This set of concerns relates to the motives behind the ‘gatekeeper’ – the controller of the markets and the health of the related seafood and the ecosystems (Box 1.3). Box 1.3

Civil Society as the Gatekeeper

Concerns have been raised about the possibility that voluntary non-government certification schemes, as they begin to exert more control over fishing practices and the marketplace, may become increasingly capable of subverting the proper role of national governments in the stewardship of fisheries to secure national benefits. Steinberg (1999) summarises this in the following terms for the case of the MSC ecolabelling programme: The aim of the MSC is to provide a governance scheme in which private certification agencies are empowered to certify local fleets as following a sustainable fishing code of conduct. Processors and distributors who buy fish only from certified fleets will be allowed to place the MSC logo on their products, and retailers and individual consumers will be urged to disassociate themselves from fish products that lack the MSC logo. In effect, the gate-keeping function is shifted to the retailers and the consumers. These actors then have the responsibility of requiring participants in the ‘fish-provision club’ to mandate that their suppliers conduct their business in a sustainable manner. The MSC facilitates the process by developing the standard and by accrediting the monitoring firms who certify local fleets; that is, the MSC sets, but does not enforce, the exclusionary threshold. Actual exclusion is devolved to the retail scale, where it is beyond the reach of legislation designed to protect free trade. The MSC approach establishes fish as a ‘club good’, a form of property that, by definition, excludes some individuals from participation. The exclusion of certain

BLBK019-Ward

22

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

actors may be desirable in the interest of systemic sustainability, but such politically charged actions cannot be endorsed without first critically examining who is excluded, why they are excluded, and who makes the exclusionary decisions. In most economic systems, exclusionary decisions are made by the market according to principles of efficiency or by the state accordingly to principles of national policy objectives. In the MSC system, the exclusionary procedure is more complex. Retailers and consumers endorse and empower the overall exclusionary process, the MSC defines the precise exclusionary threshold, and processors and distributors perform the actual excluding functions through their purchasing choices. This complex division of labour may be necessary given the nature of marine resources, state sovereignty, and agreements banning non-tariff trade barriers, but it puts an especially high premium on issues of transparency, democracy, and the individual motivations of each actor involved. Whatever corporations’ intentions, a system that internalises externalities is likely to lead to decreasing profit margins and the decline of marginal (or smaller) producers. Thus, a possible result of initiatives like the MSC is a restructuring in the industry that it seeks to regulate. Economists may laud such restructuring as the triumph of the more efficient over the less efficient, while populists may decry it as unfair to small producers. Whatever the case, such restructuring does not necessarily have any relationship to the stated aims of the MSC: ensuring that fish are harvested in a sustainable manner. The smaller firms pushed out of the market by the MSC may be behaving in just as environmentally responsible a manner as those remaining.

From Steinberg 1999.

1.6 Sustainability standards Seafood ecolabelling, rating and guide programmes are each based on a sustainability standard which expresses the ecological sustainability expectations of the programme in order for a product to carry a product recommendation. If a product is assessed as achieving the desired standard of performance, it will be permitted to carry the label (in the case of an ecolabelling programme), rated as a good choice for environmentally aware consumers, or given a ‘buy with confidence’ recommendation in a guide programme. If the product meets, or closely approaches, the standard, it may be given a conditional approval to carry the label or be given a ‘buy with caution’ recommendation, and be required to carry out remedial actions within a specified timeframe to rectify any ecological issues that are determined to be important but non-critical. All decisions about whether a product meets or approaches the sustainability standard depend on two key attributes of the programme concerned: first, the form and content of the sustainability standard, and

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

23

second, the way in which compliance of a product with the standard is assessed and verified. Along with the range of ecolabelling, rating and buyers guide programmes (see Appendix 1.1), there is a similar range of sustainability standards, because each programme has a specific (and typically unique) purpose for which it has been established. Thus, the MSC programme was established by Unilever and WWF to focus on the main global industrial wild-capture fisheries to secure fish supplies, and so the MSC standard is set in relation to fisheries that have the capability to fund major investments in assessment and certification of their products across a range of ecological issues. In contrast, some programmes are based on a narrow set of ecological issues (such as dolphin-safe) and the label and the programme relate to only specific issues. In addition to the matters covered in the standard, the level of performance of achievement can vary between programmes. So for example, the MSC programme permits the bycatch of protected species, provided these are assessed as being of an acceptably low in number or impact and leading to minimal ecological effects on the population (Ward 2003). However, other programmes use a different approach to the problem of unintended catch of protected species. For example, the Blue Ocean Institute programme (blueocean.org/Seafood) specifies that a fishery bycatch should not ‘regularly include a threatened, endangered or protected species’ and if it does, then the fishery is highly penalised within the scoring system. Both systems assign scores, but the MSC system assigns a score on the ecological impact of the bycatch, whereas the Blue Ocean system assigns a score simply based on whether any such species are caught in the fishery. The way in which compliance with the sustainability standard is assessed also varies widely across the various ecolabelling programmes. The MSC programme requires third-party independent assessment of compliance, carried out by an accredited certification company. In direct contrast, other programmes promote less rigorous assessment of sustainability and a product endorsement may be secured without an external evaluation or compliance assessment. Friend of the Sea, a certification and ecolabelling programme based in Italy, was reported to issue seafood ecolabels to applicants through a process of self-assessment and submission of an online form (Leadbitter & Ward 2007), although this is now improved. Irrespective of how a programme determines its sustainability standard or verifies compliance, for the market that it expects to influence, each programme must seek to achieve a balance between these three key factors within the structure and content of their sustainability standard and assessment process:

r market appeal to consumers to drive their preferential purchases (although such appeal must be credible, easily recognisable and robust);

r a credible, rigorous and high-level sustainability standard that can be verified and demonstrated (although few fisheries or aquaculture ventures can meet a very high level standard); and

BLBK019-Ward

24

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

r a low-cost system for assessment and verification of compliance with the standard (to promote the extent of uptake of the voluntary label to drive the improvements in environmental performance sought by the programme). Different interpretations of these key factors have resulted in some substantially different outcomes by different programmes, and conflicting recommendations have been issued to consumers. For example, in 2004, the Sierra Club of Canada (BC Chapter) issued a ‘Citizens Guide to Seafood’ that recommended 20 types of seafood as ‘Do Not Eat’ (Plate 1.2). These types included species that either were already certified by the MSC (New Zealand hoki) or were under MSC assessment (Alaska pollock), and consumers could have reasonably expected that such species might have been more appropriately placed in either the ‘OK for Now’ or ‘Ecological Concerns/Be Cautious’ recommendations, based on the MSC standard. Since that time, there have been attempts by the NGO programmes to adopt a more consistent set of seafood recommendations, although NGOs still reserve the right to promote different recommendations to suit their specific constituency or standards (see Chapter 17). The 2006 recommendations from the Canada-based Sustainable Seafood Canada (version 09/2006; www.seachoice.org) place Alaska pollock in the ‘Best Choice’ category and there is no recommendation for hoki although both are MSC-certified. Such conflicting recommendations serve to increase confusion in the minds of consumers and in the marketplace, and raise concerns about the reliability of the various ecolabels and buying guides and possibly the credibility of the organisations issuing the conflicting recommendations. This may potentially lead to broader consumer mistrust in the concept of seafood ecolabelling and diminished effectiveness of the market-incentive to create environmental change. The question of the robustness of the standard and the ability of the certification programme to actually achieve better environmental outcomes (as opposed to better marketing opportunities) is not unique to seafood, or even natural resources certification. For example, this is also an issue in the certification of shade-grown coffee in relation to the conservation of butterflies and birds (Mas & Dietsch 2004). In the certification of forests within the FSC programme, such questions have also been raised (Gullison 2003).

1.7 Ecolabelling in the marketplace There are many ecolabelling schemes in operation, but most do not include marine or freshwater fisheries or aquaculture. For example, the GEN (www.gen.gr.jp) represents members from 27 countries that administer ecolabelling programmes covering thousands of products. These include two well-known examples: the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Blue Angel. The MSC programme was adapted from experiences with the FSC (discussed in Chapter 14), but here we

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

25

examine one of the world’s most mature ecolabelling programmes to explore how it has developed over time.

1.7.1 The Blue Angel The world’s oldest operating ecolabel is the Blue Angel programme, which originated in Germany and now is more widely accepted and operates throughout Europe. The Blue Angel programme has developed ecological standards for a range of products (although not seafood), and developed and applied a system of product endorsements relevant to the product concerned. The Blue Angel programme operates through the decisions of an Environmental Label Jury, which assesses and awards labels to complying products based on an independently developed standard and set of criteria. The Blue Angel is a public–private partnership (Muller 2002) that was created in 1977 to promote environmentally sound products, relative to others in the same group categories. This ecolabel relies on voluntary information and cooperation, as well as on the motivation and the willingness of each individual to make a contribution towards environmental protection. The Blue Angel is addressed at all market players to enable retailers and consumers to make deliberate choices in favour of environmentally sound alternatives. Once approved, Blue Angel ecolabelled products are reviewed every 2 or 3 years to reflect state-of-the-art developments in ecological technology and product design. Seventy-one product groups have been identified, with over 4000 individual products approved by the Umweltbundesamt (German Environmental Protection Agency), the official assessment agency. The process is managed by RAL – the German Institute for Quality Assurance and Certification. The Environmental Label Jury – composed of industry, environmental associations, trade unions, churches and public authorities – scrutinises product groups twice yearly. The criteria for awarding the Blue Angel include, for example, the efficient use of fossil fuels, alternative products with less of an impact on the climate, reduction of greenhouse gas emission and conservation of resources. The Blue Angel ecolabel has a high level of recognition amongst consumers – 57% of respondents to a consumer survey in Germany were aware of the Blue Angel (http://cordis.europa.eu/data/PROJ FP5/ACTIONeqDndSESSIONeq 112362005919ndDOCeq485ndTBLeqEN PROJ.htm) and nearly half of all German consumers surveyed pay attention to the label when making their purchasing choices (http://www.blauer-engel.de/englisch/navigation/body blauer engel. htm). But despite a high level of industry and government engagement with the development of the product recommendations, there appears to be few documented analyses (see below) of the contribution that the ecolabel has made to improve the environment in Europe or Germany.

BLBK019-Ward

26

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

The Blue Angel is a very specific economic incentive tool. . . . The Blue Angel tries to maintain a balance between ambition and high visibility. It follows a rather pragmatic approach that assumes, on the one hand, that too ambitious criteria may lead to useless paperwork because no manufacturer will be able to apply and start the competitive process. On the other hand, it avoids setting criteria that are too weak, thereby perhaps increasing visibility but diminishing the economic value of the instrument over the longer term (Muller 2002).

The few analyses of environmental impact of the Blue Angel show a mixed set of successes. Some issues addressed by the Blue Angel programme (drink bottle recycling, adoption of chlorofluorocarbon-free sprays) have apparently been failures, while others (recycled paper, low noise-emission construction machinery) appear to have been successes, in the sense of influencing the uptake of the improved environmental practices (Muller 2002). Beyond this, there have been no assessments of whether the uptake of the ecolabel and its market popularity has translated into substantive contributions to improved environmental conditions. Overall, the Blue Angel is clearly a market success, although the environmental improvements achieved through the medium of the ecolabel appear to have been, at best, mixed. As the concept of seafood ecolabelling matures, the lessons of the 25-year-old Blue Angel programme will become much more important for consumers, producers and resellers alike. Lessons of particular relevance to seafood ecolabelling include how the Blue Angel sets and reviews the environmental performance standards and how it has interacted with other policy instruments (both regulatory and voluntary) in Europe to maintain a strong relevance and market appeal (see Chapter 21).

1.7.2 Uptake by business In 2006 and 2007, the MSC certification and ecolabelling programme has been recognised, after a decade of efforts, as finally reaching (and possibly passing over) the ‘tipping point’. This refers to the point where the market demand for ecolabelled seafood product is great enough to convince enough producers and resellers to join the programme, and the inertia of securing enough ecolabelled products to offer to consumers has been simultaneously overcome. Key to achieving this is the acceptance by major markets and business sectors of both the concept of seafood ecolabelling and certification as well as the competitive value of having such product lines available for consumers. Apart from the progressive entrance of major European players (such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Ahold; Box 1.1), the major change in the business environment has been the commitment by Wal-Mart in the US to purchase certified and ecolabelled seafood. With this came a following raft of resellers and supplier commitments to certified and ecolabelled seafood in the race to ensure market parity or even advantage (Box 1.4).

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

Box 1.4

27

The US Seafood Business Magazine

The seafood industry’s leading business magazine from the US, Seafood Business, regularly profiles seafood sustainability issues, and recently the lead story focused on the history and success of the MSC programme in the following terms: The MSC’s recent success is also due to the growing number of seafood buyers incorporating sustainability into their purchasing criteria. Merely a trend in the late 1990s when the MSC was conceived, sustainability is now a full-blown movement within the seafood industry. When seafood buyers think green, the MSC is an obvious choice, because it offers the only program in the world that’s fully consistent with the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization’s seafood eco-labeling guidelines, a recognition it attained in September. ‘We have no reservations about [the MSC] and believe it truly is the only worldwide program that addresses the needs of our sustainable-seafood platform’, says Peter Redmond, VP of Wal-Mart’s seafood division. ‘The MSC is recommended by all sorts of parties, including the WWF, Greenpeace, Environmental Defense [and seafood] suppliers’, he adds. ‘Therefore, we know the program is well accepted. The bottom line is that there are no other organizations out there that offer this sort of a program at this time.’ Besides receiving the FAO’s blessing, the MSC’s greatest accomplishment last year was perhaps Wal-Mart’s pledge in January to purchase all of its wild seafood, excluding value-added, branded product, from MSC-certified fisheries in 3–5 years. Wal-Mart is prompting other retailers, foodservice operators, suppliers and fisheries, especially in the Untied States, to seek certification, says Howes [MSC CEO]. The world’s largest retailer, with more than 6 600 stores worldwide, is already selling at least 10 MSC-labeled products, including Alaska salmon, pollock and surimi seafood and New Zealand hoki. Costco, Safeway, Wegmans, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and Target also are carrying MSC-labeled products. Wal-Mart, Costco and Safeway are among the nation’s five largest food retailers, representing more than $225 billion in annual food sales.

From Seafood Business, January 2007. ‘MSC reaches tipping point’, by Steven Hedlund.

With the very rapid rise in reseller acceptance of certified and ecolabelled seafood in the last 2 years comes the need to find enough product to supply the demand. In the short term, the limited supply may create a shortage-driven price increment favouring the existing producers, but with much less than 10% of the world’s wildcaught fish likely to be certified in the short term, this will generate a marketplace

BLBK019-Ward

28

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

response that may be counterproductive in the medium term. The pattern in other sectors indicates that there will be a rapid growth in competing products that may claim to have environmental friendliness (to capitalise on the widespread occurrence of certified product), a growth in new forms of certification and ecolabelling and a growth in reseller–producer bilateral relationships (to maximise profit and returns). Some of this will be positive, but there are aspects of competition, such as the use of weak sustainability standards, that will be likely to be counterproductive to both certification programmes and ocean ecosystems. Existing producers and certification programmes will be under intense pressure to rapidly increase the supply of certified seafood to match the demand and avoid the possible adverse impacts, without weakening standards. Amongst other issues, this implies that there will need to be a rapid change in fishery management practices to encourage many more fisheries to meet sustainability standards that would permit them to be certified – a barrier that many fisheries managers will find hard to surmount. The rise of ecolabelling and the language of sustainable fisheries have also had a big impact on fish producers and their industry associations in recent times. It is now normal to regularly find a major article on sustainability, certification or ecolabelling in the Western Australian professional fishing industry magazine (such as ‘Coming to grips with eco-labels’; Olsen 2007, Stromasta 2007), whereas only a few years ago such articles would be rare. This reflects the strong interest from fishers and producers in the issues surrounding certification and marketing of their seafood.

1.7.3 Seafood ecolabelling in Asia The concept of sustainability in developed countries is somewhat different from that in the developing world (Gardiner & Viswanathan 2004), where there is a much greater emphasis on food security and on local employment and wealth generation. The Asian countries are reported to consume more than two-thirds of the world’s seafood, yet only few Asian consumers are considered likely to be influenced by certification or ecolabels on seafood (Jacquet & Pauly 2007). However, a recent review of the potential for seafood ecolabelling in Asia (Wennberg & Bjerner 2006) concluded that there were good motives for Asian countries to adopt ecolabelling and certification systems for seafood, in both local and export markets, and called for a series of preparatory initiatives to be undertaken. While there are recognised difficulties in assessment and certification of fish stocks in Asia, Wennberg and Bjerner (2006) identified two important advantages that Asia holds over many other countries:

r despite the worldwide depletion of many major fish stocks, and some locally, Asia still ‘holds numerous stocks of aquatic organisms that are strong’; and

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

29

r there is a wide range of methods in wild-capture fishery and aquaculture that have advantages over other fisheries in terms of smaller inputs of fossil fuels, chemical and antibiotics. Specific initiatives needed in Asia to support the development of effective ecolabelling for seafood products are considered (after Wennberg & Bjerner 2006) to be:

r regional development of criteria and standards; r establishment of regional accreditation and certifying bodies; r assessment of the relevance and potential application of the FAO ecolabelling guidelines;

r assessment of further market potential; r design and implementation of pilot projects directly relevant to the region and involving the regional institutions;

r elaboration of the role of national governments; r participation in relevant international forums and development initiatives in ecolabelling;

r assessment of the uniqueness of fisheries in the ASEAN and SEAFDEC member countries, in relation to ecolabelling issues; and

r assessment of the practicality and certification – readiness of fisheries and their products. While the concept of ecolabelling of seafood products appears to be less well developed in Asia and the market drivers are perhaps some years behind those of the developed world, an equivalent set of interests seems to be emerging. It may be just a matter of time before Asia embraces certification and ecolabelling through more regionally relevant standards, criteria and labelling systems. It remains to be seen if those standards will lead to significant environmental achievements, just as it does for the developed world.

1.7.4 A chef’s story Seafood chefs worldwide have taken active role in promoting the sustainability of fish stocks. They are often in the news supporting more environmentally responsible fishing initiatives and have become increasing vocal about seafood quality and sustainability. A typical example is Neil Perry, internationally known Sydney chef and restaurateur who designs Qantas Airlines Business and First Class menus (Box 1.5). Another Sydney celebrity chef, Kylie Kwong, supports the Australian Marine Conservation Society in their efforts to promote seafood sustainability through the buying guide and cooking events (see Chapter 19). Chefs and restaurants are actively supporting the local production and marketing initiative ‘Invest in Fish South West in the UK’ related to the sustainability of fish stocks (Western Morning News, Thursday 7 October 2004). In the US, the Chefs

BLBK019-Ward

30

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

Box 1.5

The Taste of Freedom

In South Australia, bluefin tuna farms do a good job taking small fish and growing them to twice the size for market: a smart use of resources. Now they are starting a programme to produce fish from breeding stock, which is an excellent way to ease the pressure on an endangered species. Another great initiative is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). This global organisation identifies sustainable fisheries that work with the species stocks to make sure these fish will be here for our children and hopefully their children. As the buying public, we should be aware of these things because the buck stops with us. There’s no use crying over the problem if we take no part in the remedy.

From “The taste of freedom,” by Neil Perry, Qantas: The Australian Way airline magazine, February 2007. Collaborative (www.chefscollaborative.org) brings chefs, scientists and fishermen together in its Seafood Solutions programme to address the concept of sustainable seafood, how to make sustainable choices and what questions to ask when buying seafood. ‘Tastings’ are used to highlight the differences among wild, farm-raised and frozen seafood for an industry audience, while corresponding dinners showcase delicious sustainable seafood products for the general public. The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch programme hosts the annual Cooking for Solutions event to celebrate sustainable cuisine. This brings together internationally recognised chefs, local chefs, sustainable seafood suppliers, organic food suppliers, retailers, the media, conservation organisations and the public (Plate 1.3) to raise awareness about the impact of our seafood choices on the health of the oceans and the use of purchasing power to support sustainable sources (see Chapter 17). The effectiveness of the seafood sustainability messages delivered by the chefs direct to the seafood consumer cannot be underestimated, and they make an important contribution to the growing groundswell of consumer support for the certification and ecolabelling of sustainable seafood products. In our earlier book (Phillips et al. 2003) we predicted that the area of certification and ecolabelling of seafood would be highly dynamic and rapid change could be expected. This is still true, and we strongly encourage interested readers to visit the websites of the various certification and ecolabelling initiatives listed in Appendix 1.1 to maintain current awareness of this field. The authoritative chapters we have assembled in this book provide considerable coverage of the contemporary issues, the principles and the practice as a point of entry for the interested consumer, fishery or aquaculture professional or student into the unique field of seafood certification and ecolabelling.

Worldwide

Worldwide

USA

Marine Stewardship Council

National Marine Fisheries Service

Pacific Ocean

Earth Island Institute (EII)

31 Tuna

All

Crabs, spiny lobster, halibut, mussels, yellowfin tuna,

Tuna

Rock lobsters

Website

http://dolphinsafe.gov/Default.htm

www.msc.org

http://www.ecofish.com/about/ approvedspecies.htm

www.earthisland.org/

http://www.southernrocklobster.com/ cleangreen/default.aspx

Products from wild-capture fisheries

Species covered

(continued)

Certification logo or ecolabel

June 25, 2008

Ecofish

Australia

Main geographic range

A sample of the world’s certification and ecolabelling programmes that include seafood

Australian Southern Rocklobster Clean Green Program

Name

Appendix 1.1

BLBK019-Ward 9:37

32 New Zealand

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

USA

Pacific Rivers Council

Australia

Worldwide

Naturland

Wild-caught fish

Species caught in recreational fishing tournaments

Salmon

Salmonids, arapaima, milkfish, mussels, penaeid shrimp

Species covered

http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/ bestfishguide/index.asp

www.recfish.com.au/

http://www.salmonsafe.org/

www.naturland.de

Website

Certification logo or ecolabel

June 25, 2008

RecFish Australia

Main geographic range

(continued)

Name

Appendix 1.1

BLBK019-Ward 9:37

New Zealand

Bio-Gro

Japan

Alter Trade

Worldwide

Maine, USA

The Maine (USA) Lobster Council

Aquaculture Certification Council/Best Aquaculture Practices/Global Aquaculture Alliance/Aquaculture Certification

Worldwide

Friend of the Sea

Australia

USA

Flipper Seal of Approval

http://www.lobsterfrommaine.com/ certified.htm

www.friendofthesea.org

www.earthtrust.org/fsa.html

http://www.krav.se

33 Fish, molluscs, crustaceans

Penaeid shrimp, salmon, tilapia, Pangasius, channel catfish, molluscs

Fish, crustaceans, molluscs

Shrimp

www.bio-gro.co.nz

www.aquaculturecertification.org www.responsibleseafood.org www.gaalliance.org

www.australianorganic.com.au

www.altertrade.co.jp

Products from aquaculture

Maine lobsters

All

Tuna

Salmonids, perches, gadoids

NA

NA

NA

NA

(continued)

June 25, 2008

Australian Certified Organic

Sweden

Association for Control of Organic Production

BLBK019-Ward 9:37

34 Worldwide

Scotland, EU

Naturland

Soil Association Scotland

Hong Kong

Hong Kong Fish Farm Accreditation Scheme Organic Production

Australia

Switzerland

Bio-Suisse

Atlantic salmon, trout, shrimp

Salmonids, arapaima, milkfish, mussels, penaeid shrimp

Fish, crustaceans

Farmed fish, fish fry

Fish

Species covered

www.soilassociationscotland.org

www.naturland.de

www.nasaa.com.au

www.hkaffs.org

www.bio-suisse.ch

Website

(continued)

Certification logo or ecolabel

June 25, 2008

National Association for Sustainable Agriculture

Main geographic range

(continued)

Name

Appendix 1.1

BLBK019-Ward 9:37

Spain Norway Worldwide (formerly GLOBALGAP) Worldwide UK Malaysia

UK, EU Chile Scotland Thailand

Crianza del Mar (Espana) ˜

Debio

GLOBALGAP Integrated Farm Assurance Standard; Aquaculture Base

Filiere ` Quality Line\ Carrefour

Freedom Foods

Malaysian Aquaculture Farm Certification Scheme

Organic Food Federation

35

SIGES Fundacion ´ Chile/CBPA

Tartan Quality Mark

Thai Quality Shrimp Good Aquaculture Practices

Penaeid shrimp, Macrobrachium

Salmon

Salmonids

Cod (gadoids), salmonids

Penaeid shrimp, Macrobrachium, fish, ornamentals, molluscs

Salmon

Salmonids, penaeid shrimp, oysters

Salmon, trout, tilapia, Pangasius, penaeid shrimp

Organic products

Good aquacultural practices

Freshwater fish

www.thaiqualityshrimp.com

www.scottishsalmon.co.uk

www.siges-salmonchile.cl

www.orgfoodfed.com

www.fishdept.sabah.gov.my/ aquaculture.asp

www.rspca.org.uk

www.carrefour.com www.carrefour.co.th

http://www.globalgap.org/cms/ front content.php?idart= 148&idcat=48&lang=1&client=1

www.debio.no

www.ipacuicultura.com

www.bioland.de

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

June 25, 2008

There are many different types of environmental performance labels and declarations that make claims to be certification or ecolabelling programmes. Although there are only a few certification and ecolabelling programmes dedicated to seafood alone, there are many programmes that include seafood as part of broader certification or ecolabelling programmes focused on food and environment issues. Here, we provide a sample of the world’s programmes that currently include some seafood products. All logos reproduced with permission of respective copyright owners; NA, logo not available.

Germany

Bioland

BLBK019-Ward 9:37

BLBK019-Ward

36

June 25, 2008

9:37

Seafood Ecolabelling

References Agnew, D., Grieve, C., Orr, P., Parkes, G. & Barker, N. (2006) Environmental Benefits Resulting from Certification Against MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. Marine Stewardship Council, London. Botsford, L. (2003) Stocks. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Ecolabelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 36–40. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Brown, J. (2005) An account of the dolphin-safe tuna issue in the UK. Marine Policy, 29, 39–46. Chaffee, C. (2003) The process of certification. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Ecolabelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 34–35. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Chaffee, C., Leadbitter, D. & Aalders, E. (2003) Seafood evaluation, certification and consumer information. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Ecolabelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 4–13. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Constance, D.H. & Bonanno, A. (1999) Contested terrain of the global fisheries: ‘Dolphinsafe’ tuna, the Panama Declaration, and the Marine Stewardship Council. Rural Sociology, 64, 597–623. Deere, C. (1999) Ecolabelling and Sustainable Fisheries. IUCN – The World Conservation Union and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Washington and Rome. FAO (1998) Report of the technical consultation on the feasibility of developing nondiscriminatory technical guidelines for eco-labelling of products from marine capture fisheries, 29 pp. FAO Fisheries Report 594, Rome, Italy, 21–23 October 1998. Gardiner, P.R. & Viswanathan, K.K. (2004) Ecolabelling and Fisheries Management, 44 pp. WorldFish Center Studies and Reviews 27. WorldFish Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Gulbrandsen, L.H. (2006) Creating markets for eco-labelling: are consumers insignificant? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 477–489. Gullison, R.E. (2003) Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? Oryx, 37, 153–165. Hassell, J. (2005) A review of existing certification impact evaluation methodologies. A report of the ISEAL Alliance R049 Public Report. Available at: https://www.gtz.de/de/ dokumente/en-impact-evaluation-methodologies.pdf [accessed on 19 February 2008]. Hedlund, S. (2007) MSC reaches tipping point. Seafood Business, 26, 22–25. ISO (1998) Environmental labels and declarations – general principles. ISO 14020. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. ISO (1999a) Environmental labels and declarations – Type I environmental labelling – principles and procedures. ISO/DIS 14024. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. ISO (1999b) Environmental labels and declarations – self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling). ISO/DIS 14021. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. ISO (2006) Environmental labels and declarations – Type III environmental declarations – principles and procedures. ISO 14025. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. Jacquet, J.L. & Pauly, D. (2007) The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries. Marine Policy, 31, 308–313.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:37

Ecolabelling of Seafood

37

Janen, U. (2007) Global Environmental Governance –The Case of the Marine Stewardship Council, Master Thesis. M.Sc. Business, Language, Culture, Business and Development Studies, Department of Intercultural Communication and Management, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. Leadbitter, D. & Ward, T.J. (2007) An evaluation of systems for the integrated assessment of capture fisheries. Marine Policy, 31, 458–469. Mas, A.H. & Dietsch, T.D. (2004) Linking shade coffee certification to biodiversity conservation: butterflies and birds in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Applications, 14, 642–654. May, B., Leadbitter, D., Sutton, M. & Weber, M. (2003) The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) background, rationale and challenges. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Ecolabelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 14–33. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Muller, E. (2002) Environmental Labelling, Innovation and the Toolbox of Environmental Policy, Lessons Learned from the German Blue Angel Program, 38 pp. Federation of German Consumer Organisations, Berlin, Germany. Available at: http://www.blauerengel.de/downloads/EDDA-Mueller-Papier.pdf [accessed on 19 February 2008]. Olsen, K.E. (2007) Coming to grips with eco-labelling. ProWest Fishing Magazine, January/February 2007, p. 11. O’Rourke, D. (2006). Multi-stakeholder regulation: privatizing or socializing global labour standards? World Development, 34, 899–918. Phillips, B. (2003) Management systems. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Ecolabelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 57–62. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Phillips, B., Ward, T. & Chaffee, C. (Eds) (2003) Ecolabelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? 196 pp. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Steinberg, P.E. (1999) Fish or Foul: Investigating the Politics of the Marine Stewardship Council. Marine Environmental Politics in the 21st Century, Conference Papers. Available at: globetrotter.berkeley.edu/macarthur/marine/papers/steinberg-1.html [accessed on 19 February 2008]. Stromasta, K.E. (2007) Is one seafood eco-label enough? ProWest Fishing Magazine, March/April 2007, p. 8. Sutton, D. (2003) An unsatisfactory encounter with the MSC—a conservation perspective. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Ecolabelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 114–119. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Teisl, M.F., Roe, B. & Hicks, R.L. (2002) Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from dolphin-safe labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43, 339– 359. Ward, T.J. (2003) Effects of fishing on the ecosystem. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Ecolabelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 41–56. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Wessells, C.R., Cochrane, K., Deere, C., Wallis, P. & Willmann, R. (2001) Report of the technical consultation on the product certification and ecolabelling for fisheries sustainability, 83 pp. FAO Fisheries Report 422, Rome, Italy. Wennberg, N. & Bjerner, M. (2006) Ecolabelling aquatic products: can consumer power make the management of Southeast Asian fisheries more sustainable? Fish for the People 4, 2–15.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

20:38

Chapter 2

The Economics of Ecolabelling Cathy A. Roheim

2.1 Introduction Environmental labelling makes relevant environmental information available to appropriate consumers (US EPA 1993, 1998). Ecolabelling, which is a stringent form of environmental labelling, relies on independent third-party verification that the products meet certain environmental criteria or standards (US EPA 1998). Once the product meets those criteria or standards, a ‘seal-of-approval’, or an ecolabel, may be affixed to the product. The potential usefulness of ecolabelling schemes to create market-based incentives for environmentally friendly products and production processes for all products, food and otherwise, was internationally recognised at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 (UN 1993). 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’. (paragraph 4 of Agenda 21). Moreover, consumer organisations in many countries, and some international consumer unions, argue that consumers have a right to obtain information about marketed products that is relevant to their values and preferences, especially information pertaining to product safety or impacts on health or the environment. Such labelling has many potential societal benefits, including environmental improvement, accurate information dissemination to consumers and increased awareness of, and interest by, the public about environmental issues (Morris & Scarlett 1996, Kuhre 1997). 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. It is hypothesised that this may be true even if the labelled product is relatively more expensive, because informed consumers may be willing to pay more for the product they feel has the least impact on the environment, thus creating a market-based incentive for the increased production of such goods. Ecolabelling is a growing concept in the promotion of sustainable seafood around the world. The notion has created significant attention in seafood markets since the 38

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

20:38

The Economics of Ecolabelling

39

Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) teamed up with Unilever, the multinational corporation, to create the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) in 1997 to certify sustainable capture fisheries (see Chapter 4), and the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) formed the Aquaculture Certification Council (ACC) in 2002 to certify sustainable shrimp aquaculture producers (see Chapter 5). Those production sources that are certified may place ecolabels on affiliated products, signalling to consumers that the product was produced sustainably. The goal of ecolabelling programmes is to create market-based incentives for better management of fisheries and aquaculture. The consumer plays a critical role in the success of such programmes, as without consumer demand for the product there would be no market. Thus, much of the focus of economic research over the past several years has been on evaluating potential consumer demand and willingness to pay a premium. Indeed, much of the focus of those who wish to evaluate the success or failure of ecolabelling programmes lies in measuring actual price premiums. However, it is also apparent that consumers do not demand ecolabelled seafood purely on their own initiative. The role of marketing and creating a market for sustainable seafood is very important to ecolabelling programmes. In this, the economics of ecolabelling go well beyond simply consumer demand. The economics of ecolabelling is also about demonstrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) and about the economic reasons why corporations supply certified products to consumers – even when consumers do not seemingly have a pre-existing demand for the product. So, for corporations, ecolabelling is about balancing the benefit of avoiding market risks against the costs of supplying certified product. In the case of capture fisheries, the economics of ecolabelling also encompasses the economics of the fishery, the costs of sustainable fishing practices and certification, and whether the marginal benefits of changing practices outweigh the marginal costs. The purpose of this chapter is to review the economics of ecolabelling. To facilitate this, the chapter is structured to ‘move down’ the market chain. We will begin by looking at consumer demand for ecolabelled products by reviewing the importance of information and the acquisition of information. The following section will review the current literature on the economics of seafood ecolabelling, regarding the issues of price premiums and consumers’ willingness to pay for ecolabelled products. This is followed by a section discussing the economic role of the middle layer of the market – the retailers, wholesalers and processors – who choose to supply certified products to the consumer. The discussion of the initial two sections can generally be applied to either ecolabelling of products from sustainable capture fisheries or best practices from aquaculture, although much of the focus is on sustainable capture fisheries since most of the research has been conducted on that subject. The economics of ecolabelling and certification of capture fisheries in particular is discussed briefly in the third section of the chapter. The final section presents conclusions and needs for future research.

BLBK019-Ward

40

June 2, 2008

20:38

Seafood Ecolabelling

2.2 The economics of consumer demand for ecolabelled products 2.2.1 The theoretical foundation: economics of information The underlying economic theory for labelling products can be traced back to Stigler’s (1961) work on the economics of information, who first presents information as a valuable resource. However, information is recognised as a resource which comes with a cost – the cost of searching. Stigler focuses in particular on the search for a product with the lowest market price, where that ‘search cost’ is attributable to time and energy expended by the consumer in determining which seller offers product at the lowest price. The higher valued the good is, the greater the benefit of searching; conversely, the higher one’s income, the higher the opportunity cost of searching for the lowest-priced seller. According to Stigler, a consumer searches for information until the marginal benefit of additional information is equal to the marginal cost of obtaining the additional information. As a result, there is a willingness to pay for information, and a marginal cost of obtaining it. Nelson (1970, 1974) expanded on this topic by looking at the difficulty of determining product quality in the market, which is even greater than that of determining price levels, since information about quality is usually more difficult to obtain than price. In addition, since it is often impossible for buyers to determine the difference between good products and bad products, there are incentives for sellers to promise high-quality products but market poor-quality products, as pointed out by Akerlof (1970). Nelson distinguished between two types of products, ‘search goods’ and ‘experience goods’. Search goods are those with attributes that can be determined by searching, where for seafood, for example, these attributes might be defined as price, colour, or smell. Experience goods are those for which the quality may be discerned by, for seafood, experiencing the taste or ease of preparation. Search and experience goods may be advertised by producers to provide consumers with information. This will lower the consumer’s search costs. Search characteristics, which can be readily checked by the consumer before purchase, are hypothetically the most accurately advertised. The producer elects to undertake the advertising as long as this is a means to increase market share. Consumers’ acceptance of producers’ claims will vary by the nature of the characteristic advertised, since producers will generally disclose only information advantageous to them. This competitive disclosure process results in explicit claims for all positive aspects of goods, and causes consumers to be suspicious of goods without claims (Aldrich 1999). Credibility of the producer will affect consumers’ acceptance of the claims, but ultimately consumers’ experience with product quality will determine repeat purchases. Darby and Karni (1973) expand the categorisation of goods to include ‘credence goods’. Consumers cannot determine the quality of credence goods even after they

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

20:38

The Economics of Ecolabelling

41

buy and consume them – for seafood, nutritional content, safety and sustainability are all examples of credence characteristics. In this case, we truly have an imperfect market because first, there is asymmetry in possession of knowledge between producer and consumer, and second, it is not practical for consumers to assess the quality of the product. It is impractical or impossible for consumers to perform laboratory tests for the safety and nutritional value of seafood they purchase. Similarly, in general, it is not feasible for the consumer to observe the production process to determine if the product came from a sustainable fishery or was produced under best practices in an aquaculture facility, even if the consumer was equipped with the technical knowledge required to make such a judgement. Labelling can transform credence attributes to search attributes that allow the consumer to judge the quality of the good before purchase. For credence goods, one may rely on producer claims, but generally consumers place more trust in an independent third party to provide truthful information to the consumer on quality. In this case, either a third-party private certification may be used, or there may be government regulations requiring that certain product characteristics be revealed to the consumer by means of government testing or inspections.

2.2.2 Demand for attributes Recognising that attributes have value to consumers, Lancaster (1971) characterised products as a bundle of attributes, where each good has one or more attributes, and specified the analysis as one of consumer demand for a bundle of attributes rather than a bundle of goods. The essence of Lancaster’s framework is that a good by itself does not yield satisfaction, but it possesses characteristics (attributes) that define it. Therefore, there is a demand for attributes in the marketplace. Lancaster’s work has been the underlying theory which is used as justification for much of the economic analysis of evaluating consumers’ preferences for seafood safety (Wessells & Anderson 1995, Wessells et al. 1996), seafood ecolabelling (Wessells et al. 1999b, Jaffry et al. 2004) and seafood production methods (Holland & Wessells 1998). By viewing the characteristics of a seafood product as quality, safety, price, production process, taste, colour, etc., the marginal value of each of these attributes to the consumer can be evaluated. Consumers’ willingness to pay for various amounts of attributes per unit of food reflects their perceptions of the benefits they will receive from those attributes (Caswell 1998) and varies depending upon a number of factors. For example, willingness to pay may be higher for consumers with higher income levels and lower for consumers with lower income levels. Other factors that may influence demand for attributes include other socio-economic and demographic characteristics of consumers.

BLBK019-Ward

42

June 2, 2008

20:38

Seafood Ecolabelling

2.2.3 Empirical analysis of consumer demand for ecolabelled seafood In respect of ecolabelling programmes, it is a testable hypothesis that some proportion of consumers will demand sustainable seafood and pay a premium for these products, thus creating a market-based incentive to supply fish from sustainable fisheries or aquaculture facilities using best practices. Based on the theoretical foundations discussed above, empirical analyses of hypotheses about consumer demand for ecolabelled seafood have been conducted over the last several years (Wessells et al. 1999a, b, Johnston et al. 2001, Jaffry et al. 2004, Johnston & Roheim 2006). A number of common themes run throughout these analyses: providing a clear definition of ‘sustainability’ is important; the identity of the certifying body (whether it is a governmental agency or private group) may influence consumers’ choices; the consumers’ own characteristics may influence their choices; product prices and price premiums for labelled products are important; and species differences may affect consumers’ choices. In all these studies, stated preferences are analysed rather than revealed preferences. In other words, consumers were asked about their hypothetical demand for ecolabelled seafood, because at the time of most of these empirical studies very little actual ecolabelled seafood (MSC or GAA) had yet appeared in the market and analysis of actual consumer market decisions was not possible. Only one labelled product has been in the market for a decade or more and consumer demand for this (dolphin-safe tuna) is discussed below. In the US market, the demand for ecolabelled fresh seafood (specifically cod, cocktail shrimp and salmon) was assessed in the late 1990s (Wessells et al. 1999b). The methodology involved gathering data with a survey administered to a random sample of 1640 US consumers by telephone. The survey was designed in such a manner that allowed respondents to compare certified (i.e. with an ecolabel) and uncertified (i.e. without an ecolabel) products, whose prices differed reflecting a premium paid for the certified product. With the exception of differences in certification and price, the two products were identical in all regards, including quality and freshness. Certification was described as a ‘program . . . that would label seafood in order to guarantee that it is caught under strict controls that prevent too much fishing. Certified seafood will have [a] new label that guarantees no overfishing. Uncertified seafood will not have this guarantee’. Consumers were presented with three paired comparisons, in random order, for salmon, cod and cocktail shrimp. The base price varied for each species, depending on the range of common retail prices for each product at the time of the survey. Premiums for certified product ranged between −$2.00 and $5.00 per pound. The certifying agency alternated between the WWF, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the MSC. It is important to note that certified fresh salmon was compared to uncertified fresh salmon, certified fresh cod to uncertified fresh

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

20:38

The Economics of Ecolabelling

43

cod, etc. The survey did not ask respondents to choose, for example, certified cod versus uncertified salmon. Data were collected in the summer of 1998 on the household’s geographic location, level of trust in specific agencies as providers of certification, seafood consumption habits, household seafood and grocery budgets, memberships in environmental organisations, perceptions of the status of Pacific salmon and Atlantic cod stocks and a variety of other factors with potential impact on preferences for labelled seafood products. On average, about 70% of respondents chose ecolabelled shrimp, salmon or cod over the non-ecolabelled product. Econometric analysis was performed to determine what factors influence the choice of ecolabelled products over non-ecolabelled products. Results were highly statistically significant and suggested that respondents’ preferences for ecolabelled fish are most significantly affected by the size of the price premium. As the premium increases, the likelihood that the respondent would choose the ecolabelled product over the non-ecolabelled product declines. In addition, the likelihood of choosing ecolabelled fish differed by species, geographic location of the household and consumer group, and was slightly affected by certifying agency. For example, the effect of the premium was negative (declining likelihood of purchase) for all species, but the effect was smaller in magnitude for salmon and greatest for cod. Households on the West Coast of the US were more likely to choose certified salmon than those in other parts of the nation. Households that were members of environmental organisations were more likely to choose certified fish over uncertified fish. The research above shows several statistically significant explanatory variables in the analysis of consumers’ choice of ecolabelled seafood. Jacquet and Pauly (2007) incorrectly conclude that Wessells et al. (1999b) found few statistically significant variables affected choice of ecolabelled seafood. In addition, other factors found to influence choice of ecolabelled fish were gender – females were more likely to choose ecolabelled products than males; and seafood budgets – those households with larger seafood budgets were more likely to choose uncertified products. These results also indicated that significant consumer education was desirable, as fully two-thirds of respondents indicated that they were unsure of the status of Pacific salmon and Atlantic cod stocks. To examine differences among countries in preferences and demand for ecolabelled seafood, Johnston et al. (2001) collected data from a virtually identical telephone survey administered to 2039 Norwegian residents during the autumn of 1999. The primary differences in information collected between Norway and the US were that (a) instead of cocktail shrimp, the Norwegian survey asked about the smaller coldwater shrimp; (b) instead of using the NMFS as a governmental certifying agency, the Norwegian survey used the Norwegian National Fisheries Directorate; and (c) premiums were specified in Norwegian kroner, not US dollars. The data showed that Norwegian consumers were less likely to choose certified seafood products, averaging closer to a 50% preference for certified seafood.

BLBK019-Ward

44

June 2, 2008

20:38

Seafood Ecolabelling

Approximately 34% of respondents preferred uncertified seafood, while 15% (a relatively large percentage) gave no answer. To test the hypothesis that consumer preferences for ecolabelled seafood differ across nations, econometric analysis similar to that discussed above was performed. In this case, Norwegian and US data were combined, with appropriate variables specified to determine if there were differences in the two sets of respondents. To compare premiums in both kroner and US dollars, premiums were converted into percentages. Again, results indicate that as premiums grow, consumers will be less likely to choose ecolabelled seafood. This effect is even stronger in Norway, thus consumers in Norway may be more price-sensitive than those in the US. In addition, consumers in Norway are more likely than those in the US to be influenced by the certifying agency. Those Norwegians who belong to an environmental organisation are less likely to choose certified seafood than US respondents who are members of environmental groups. There are several important implications from the international comparisons described above. After respondents to these surveys were informed about what the product was being certified for (i.e. why it had an ecolabel), they were asked to make their choices between certified and non-certified products. The results showed that the majority of respondents chose ecolabelled products; however, that choice was very dependent on the size of the price premium. In addition, the sample of consumers who were surveyed in each country could be considered ‘educated’ consumers, i.e. educated about the meaning of the ecolabel. In reality, when these choices are no longer hypothetical and consumers may be more or less educated about the ecolabels, consumers may be more or less likely to choose products from certified fisheries. That choice will certainly depend on the premium paid for ecolabelled fish over non-ecolabelled, but will also depend on how aware the consumer is about the issue that the ecolabel addresses. Furthermore, the consumer must understand the content of the label, i.e. the link between their purchasing decision and effective management of the seafood resource. In contrast to the studies discussed above, Jaffry et al. (2004) compared several species and product forms on the basis of both sustainability and quality claims in UK. Six hundred in-home surveys conducted in 2001 were the basis of the empirical data. There were several sections of the survey, collecting data on general food purchases and factors affecting food purchases; fish purchases and factors affecting fish purchases; socio-economic and demographic questions; and the key portion of the survey in which consumers were asked to choose between fish products of various attributes in an experimental design somewhat similar to those used in Wessells et al. (1999b) and Johnston et al. (2001). In the UK survey, consumers were given a definition for certified sustainable products as ‘fish supplies are maintained; high fish populations are guaranteed; and long term environmental damage is avoided’. Certified high-quality fish were defined as ‘the quality of the fish has been assessed and the safety, freshness, taste and appearance of the fish has been shown to be of a high standard’. The survey

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

20:38

The Economics of Ecolabelling

45

respondent was then asked to choose one product from among four hypothetical products, where the attributes of the product varied according to product form, certification, certifier, origin, production method, price and brand. Each of these attributes was more specifically identified. For example, product form could vary between fresh and chilled cod fillets, fresh and chilled salmon steaks, canned tuna, frozen fish fingers, smoked haddock fillets and frozen prawns. Certification was specifically certification for sustainability, certification for quality, or was uncertified. The certifier could be either governmental or non-governmental. The fish could be UK in origin, foreign, or it could be unstated. The product could be either farmed or wild. The prices were specified in GBP (£) and ranged from low to very high, depending upon the product. Finally, the brand was specified to be either a shop’s brand or a manufacturer’s brand. The model in this case differs from those of previous studies discussed above – it is not testing ‘what influences choice of ecolabelled seafood’ but rather ‘what influences choice of seafood’? The results indicate that sustainability certification has a positive and significant influence on seafood product choice when all seafood products are pooled together. When species are taken individually, results are even more interesting. Certification of sustainability increases the probability that a consumer chooses a cod fillet by 6.61%, a can of tuna by 6.32% and a salmon steak by 5.17%. Similarly, such certification increases the probability of choosing prawns by 4.31% and haddock by 3.46%. These effects were found to be larger than the effects of certification of quality. Johnston and Roheim (2006) investigated if US consumers will switch away from their favourite species if it is not ecolabelled to a less-favoured but ecolabelled species, given varying price levels. A survey was mailed to 1500 households in Connecticut with a response rate of 31%. Respondents were asked to choose between ecolabelled and non-ecolabelled fresh swordfish, flounder, salmon and cod at varying prices and where the certification indicated the fish had come from a fishery that was guaranteed to be not overfished. Particular attention was paid to whether or not these species were the favourite species of the respondent and whether or not the respondent believed these species to be currently overfished. Twenty-five percent of respondents ranked salmon as their favourite fish to eat, 10.1% ranked swordfish highest, 6% ranked cod highest and 4.4% ranked flounder highest. Over 50% of respondents were unsure if any of these four species were overfished, while 21% indicated swordfish were severely overfished, 17% responded that Atlantic cod were severely overfished, 12% noted Pacific salmon were severely overfished and 9% indicated Atlantic flounder were severely overfished. The results indicate that consumers are not willing to sacrifice their most-favoured (by taste) seafood species in order to obtain a less-favoured species bearing a ‘no overfishing’ ecolabel. Results are relative to the specific case study, species considered and the sampled population, but if the results hold more broadly, the findings of this work represent a potential challenge in promoting sustainable fisheries or aquaculture if a broad set of species are not certified.

BLBK019-Ward

46

June 2, 2008

20:38

Seafood Ecolabelling

The analyses discussed above were all conducted using survey data where respondents were asked to choose among hypothetical products, some of which carried ecolabels focused on wild fisheries. To date, no peer-reviewed economic research has been published that has been conducted on market data to determine the actual consumer demand for ecolabelled seafood. Nor has there been any economic analysis conducted into the presence of price premiums at any level of the market – at the retail level or along the market chain to the ex-vessel level. There is anecdotal evidence to support the presence of price premiums, but as yet there is no firm evidence based on statistical market analysis. The primary reasons for this are (a) lack of readily accessible data (proprietary and nonproprietary) covering a long enough time span on which to conduct the analysis; and (b) the complicated nature of the markets for many of the certified fisheries, in which teasing out the price effects of certification from the effects of other factors influencing price is difficult. Over time, some of these difficulties will be solved and market analyses will begin to appear as questions about the market benefits of ecolabelling programmes will persist.

2.2.4 Consumer demand for dolphin-safe tuna In contrast to the above research on preferences, market data on consumer demand for canned tuna in the US, before and after the introduction of the dolphin-safe label, have been used to determine whether the presence of the label altered consumer purchases of canned tuna (Teisl et al. 2002). In contrast to MSC and GAA ecolabelling, dolphin-safe labeling in the US had 100% coverage of canned tuna – consumers had no choice between canned tuna labeled as dolphin-safe and unlabeled canned tuna. Thus, price premiums were not an issue within the canned tuna market. The data used were scanner data from the A.C. Nielsen Marketing Research Company from April 1988 through to December 1995, including an estimate of average national monthly sales and prices based on 3000 supermarkets with sales of at least $2 million annually. The dolphin-safe ecolabel was introduced in April 1990. A demand system analysis was performed, investigating demand for canned tuna relative to demand for shelf-stable luncheon meats, other canned seafood (salmon, shrimp and sardines) and canned red meat. The results indicate that the introduction of the ecolabel increased the market share of canned tuna, relative to these other products, and that this increase persisted over time, taking into account relative price and income changes.

2.3 The economics of the market Unlike the situation in organic food labelling, where the consumer perceives a personal health benefit from the consumption of organic foods relative to food produced from conventional practices, consumers who purchase ecolabelled seafood products are doing so out of concern for the environment and they do not necessarily

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

20:38

The Economics of Ecolabelling

47

perceive a personal health benefit from those goods. Thus, while the consumers surveyed in the analyses above indicated a willingness to purchase ecolabelled seafood – once prompted with the choices – there is no major grassroots campaign among consumers to demand sustainable seafood from either sustainable fisheries or sustainable aquaculture production. Environmental groups have led the charge to educate consumers about the issues of producing seafood in a sustainable manner (see below, and Chapters 16–19), hoping that eventually enough environmentally aware consumers will become a major force within the market. That time has probably not yet arrived. Much of what is currently driving global sales of MSC-ecolabelled seafood may be the efforts of the processors such as Young’s Seafood in UK (see Box 2.1 and Box 2.2); Frosta in Germany and Unilever globally; retailers such as Whole Foods Market and Wal-Mart in the US; Marks & Spencers, Waitrose and Sainsbury’s in UK; and Migros in Switzerland – among many others – to procure sustainable seafood. So in the absence of consumer demand for ecolabelled seafoods, what then are the economics behind their corporate decisions?

Box 2.1

Fish for Life: Sustainable Fisheries

Young’s has been supplying fish and seafood for over 200 years, and so we believe it is our duty to make an active contribution towards long-term seafood sustainability. Sustainable practice is the only way to safeguard the future of this important global food resource. Our commitment All our fish purchases are made only with clear understanding of the capacity of the environment to support the fishing or fish farming effort involved. We work actively with our supplier network to initiate and support projects, policies and actions which make a valid contribution to long-term sustainability. Young’s Fish for Life We call our sustainable seafood approach ’Young’s Fish for Life’ (FFL). This comprises our seafood sustainability position and our behaviour. Key to Fish for Life are our ‘Ten Principles for Responsible Fish Procurement’ – which govern the way we buy all our fish, both wild-caught and farmed. Ten Principles is underpinned by our own unique fisheries assessment process. Fish for Life drives us to be actively engaged with many highly specific fisheries and aquaculture issues. Our most up-to-date policies and positionings on these can be found on our policies pages. NB: Fish for Life has been independently audited and verified as a robust and valid approach by the respected independent consultancy, Bodycote Lawlabs.

BLBK019-Ward

48

June 2, 2008

20:38

Seafood Ecolabelling

Marine Stewardship Council Young’s is also closely aligned to the objectives of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) – an international initiative to verify and label fish from sustainable wild-caught fisheries. We have been a key supporter of the MSC since 1997 and our deputy CEO (Mike Parker) serves on the MSC Board of Trustees. Young’s currently supplies around 80% of the MSC products available in the UK market. However, not all fisheries are yet MSC accredited, so we use our Fish for Life standard to provide reassurance that all our supplier fisheries have been properly assessed against our own rigorous criteria. As at 9 April 2008 www.youngsseafood.co.uk

Box 2.2

Ten Principles for Responsible Fish Procurement

Fish for Life 1. Legality Young’s will take all reasonable precautions to ensure that we do not purchase fish which has been caught, landed or farmed illegally. We will deal only with suppliers who operate in an open and responsible manner and are able to demonstrate compliance with all the relevant national and international regulations. Young’s will make every effort to investigate and ensure the legality of our supply chain. 2. Objective assessment Young’s bases its fish procurement decisions on a unique formal selection criterion that clearly defines and applies our understanding of ‘responsible’ procurement. We acknowledge that in many cases, the status of aquatic ecosystems will be dynamic and often poorly understood. We are conscious of the continuing development of this knowledge base and the flux of authoritative opinion and will review our selection criteria and policy positions regularly to ensure that we make decisions based on the most current information available. 3. Labelling Young’s operates a policy of openness in our labelling of fish products to ensure that the consumer has sufficient information at point of sale to make informed purchasing decisions. We will communicate the origins of each fish on pack (or through our website) to support the consumer’s right of choice. Wherever possible, we will support relevant ecolabelling to clearly indicate and promote the use of fish procured from independently certified sustainable fisheries and responsible fish farming operations.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

20:38

The Economics of Ecolabelling

49

4. Promotion Young’s will actively promote the use of certified sustainable species in the marketplace. Our new product development will be mindful of the choice and availability of species from certified fisheries and our existing portfolio will be reviewed as an ongoing basis to make sure we make optimal use of these resources. 5. Continuous improvement Young’s recognises the need for continuous improvement in both the wild capture fishery and aquaculture sectors. We identify and develop trading relationships with suppliers who demonstrate an active awareness of the environmental impacts of their operations. We will actively encourage our suppliers to strive for improvement in the application of best practice and the implementation of new technologies to progressively minimise the environmental impact of commercial fishing and fish farming on the aquatic ecosystem. 6. Engagement Young’s recognises the diverse interests of all stakeholders in the fishing and aquaculture industries. We engage openly in dialogue with all parties, including fishermen, fish farmers, governments, trade associations, non-governmental organisations and food retailers. We will strive to ensure that our policies, values and behaviour regarding responsible fish procurement are leading and shaping opinion – and pursue a vigorous and positive agenda rather than being merely passive or responsive to criticism or challenge. 7. Prohibition Young’s has clearly defined and publicly stated prohibitions from its business portfolio. These are products and practices which we openly condemn and will not support in any of our commercial operations. At present these include the sale of species which appear as ‘endangered’ or ‘critically endangered’ on the IUCN Red List, farmed species which have been subject to genetic modification, the practice of ‘shark finning’, the use of the most destructive fishing methods such as dynamite and poison and the sale of species caught by fishing methods that incur unacceptable and unnecessary bycatch of non-target species such as turtles, dolphins and seabirds. 8. Research Young’s recognises the need for ongoing scientific research into new and more effective technical methods for fishery and fish farm management and encourages

BLBK019-Ward

50

June 2, 2008

20:38

Seafood Ecolabelling

environmental, ecological, animal welfare, food quality and safety improvement. We will strive to become involved with such scientific research projects and use our market position to encourage implementation in both catching and farming sectors. 9. Traceability We believe that traceability from ‘boat to plate’ or from ‘farm to plate’ is of paramount importance in ensuring legality, product integrity and consumer choice. We therefore endorse, support, promote and participate in new developments and technologies in this field and will strive to ensure that all wild captured fish purchases by Young’s are traceable back to the catching vessel or a known group of vessels, as well as to the specific catch area (as defined by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas – ICES). We will continue to develop and improve our traceability systems for farmed fish to ensure traceability of product to farm site and to facilitate accessible fish history in accordance with our policies for farmed fish species. 10. Ethics and Environment Young’s supports the ETI base Code of Conduct and the aims and objectives of the international standard on ethical trading, SA 8000. As a fundamental matter of principle we will not conduct trade with companies that are not mindful of their ethical, social, environmental, financial and humanitarian responsibilities. We adopt a precautionary approach whenever we cannot adequately confirm such standards are being applied by our suppliers. Young’s is aware that certain fishing and fish farming practices may result in irreversible ecosystem degradation and have detrimental effects on the livelihoods, social conditions and food security of local communities. We seek to identify such issues to ensure that all our purchases are based upon sound ethical and environmental principles. We will also endeavour to use our influence to help eradicate such malpractices from the wider industry. Finally, we acknowledge that global climate change is also directly relevant to the changing marine environment. On this issue we have a complementary stream of activity designed to minimise the wider environmental impacts of our business. For the most up-to-date information on this, please consult our website. As at 9 April 2008 www.youngsseafood.co.uk

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

20:38

The Economics of Ecolabelling

51

A useful place to start is with the definition of CSR. As defined by Portney (2005), CSR is a consistent pattern of private firms doing more than they are required to do, under applicable laws and regulations governing the environment, in the communities in which they operate. Portney (2005) concludes that firms are most likely to pursue CSR because it is profitable. First, CSR can improve demand conditions. For example, some consumers may reward firms practicing CSR by being more loyal to them. This may take the form of higher willingness to pay for ‘green’ products or buying more from green firms whose prices are the same as those of other firms selling seemingly identical products. Nonetheless, the empirical evidence in this area is somewhat ambiguous (Margolis & Walsh 2001). Second, CSR can improve the public image of firms supplying green products, or entirely differentiate corporations, in the perception of consumers. Whole Foods Markets in the US was established as a market that specialised in natural foods, and is now the largest of the natural food store supermarket chains, a distinctly different type of market from the more standard supermarket chains such as Safeways, Albertsons and Stop n Shop. Similarly, Marks & Spencers has distinguished itself in the UK market. The distinction can be reflected in the customer base – higher income, more educated and more interested in the characteristics of the goods they buy from both health and environmental perspectives. This distinction may or may not be reflected in the share price of the corporation on the stock exchange. Finally, Wal-Mart’s decision to carry MSC- and GAA-certified seafood may be seen as an attempt by Wal-Mart to address some of the criticisms it has faced in the US market regarding its record on environmental and social issues (Financial Times 2006). Third, CSR can improve factor-supply conditions. ‘Green’ corporations may find it easier to recruit skilled or highly motivated employees, and the employees of these firms may be more productive because of the goodwill they have for their employer and the work that they do. More directly relevant to seafood, actively promoting sustainable fisheries may reduce the risk of future supply disruptions from overfished fisheries and lower the expected future costs of sourcing fish. It is not unreasonable to believe that it may have been in Unilever’s self-interest to help establish the MSC. As one of the world’s largest buyers of fish at the time, the strategy to motivate the fishing industry and management community to improve the sustainability of fisheries is one means of ensuring a reliable supply of fish at reasonable cost in the future. Given Unilever’s strong market position at that time (prior to divestiture of some of its European operations), asserting it would buy only from sustainable sources was one way to promote that strategy, and by taking an early role it could help to distinguish Unilever in an increasingly green-sensitive marketplace. In the case of fisheries, promotion of MSC-certified fish as a form of CSR yields other dividends in the form of risk reduction for processors and retailers. Purchase of certified fish reduces public conflicts with environmental groups, which can turn away consumers. Traceability guaranteed via the chain-of-custody process can

BLBK019-Ward

52

June 2, 2008

20:38

Seafood Ecolabelling

help avoid the embarrassment and business risk of purchasing illegally caught fish (Roheim & Sutinen 2006). With respect to the latter, by voluntarily incorporating business practices that mitigate sale of illegal fish, the seafood industry may be avoiding more onerous regulations. Portney (2005) originally noted that practicing CSR may make it possible for firms to avoid more onerous regulations, or influence the regulations in ways that raise the cost for competitors, and result in more favourable treatment by local communities. There are many possible reasons why these corporations are engaging in bringing sustainable seafood to the marketplace, other than because ‘it is the right thing to do’. There are costs involved to the producers of ecolabelled seafood, such as logo licensing and chain-of-custody certification, although these are generally not that large. Clearly, these companies have revealed that they expect a market benefit, either in the present or in the future, that exceeds those costs.

2.4 The economics of certification of fisheries In considering the economics of seafood ecolabelling, this chapter proceeds through the market levels from the consumer – at the ‘top’ of the market chain – through to the catch sector at the ‘bottom’ of the market chain. This section discusses the economic implications of ecolabelling programmes on fisheries and the fishing industry, or in other words, the supply sector. To begin with, fisheries management systems play a large role in whether or not a fishery may become certified as sustainable. Fisheries economists have long provided insight into management programmes to achieve optimal management, based on the recognition that providing appropriate economic incentives to the fishermen can lead to better management of the fishery. Open-access and some limited-access management programmes are generally recognised as leading to overcapacity in fisheries further leading to overfishing (Gordon 1954, Anderson 1977). Rights-based systems have been proposed as a means to reduce capacity and control fishing effort (National Research Council 1999). Using a theoretical bioeconomic model, Gudmundsson and Wessells (2000) analyse the impact of ecolabelling on sustainable fisheries production under open-access and limited-access fisheries, and those managed under property rights systems. The analysis shows that if price rises due to the ecolabel, fishing effort will increase. Therefore, if certification of a fishery results in price increase, only those fisheries which have management regimes that can control overcapitalisation and prevent excessive fishing effort will preserve sustainable fisheries production. In addition, a dynamic model of a fishery under property rights management shows that if the premium is a function of stock size, then the fishery whose stock size is below the equilibrium level will recover more quickly with an ecolabel as the label serves the function of a market-based incentive. Combined, the results indicate that only those fisheries that are managed well enough to control fishing effort in the face

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

20:38

The Economics of Ecolabelling

53

of price changes – in other words, when demand increases due to the ecolabel – should be certified. And indeed, such stipulations for strict management are part of the standards against which fisheries are judged in assessment under ecolabelling programmes such as the MSC certification process. The decision to become certified for a fishery lies in balancing the current and discounted future costs and benefits. On the cost side, there are more than simply the costs of the certification process, but also the costs of any necessary changes to fishing and management practices that may be essential in order to meet the standards of the programme. If this necessitates altering the gear types of the vessels to less environmentally harmful gear to preserve habitat, structural changes in vessels to limit bycatch, or the collection of data which was not collected in the past, then these costs may not be trivial. On the benefit side, potential benefits to the fishery may be:

r increased market share at the expense of other noncertified competitors selling the same species;

r ability to sell one’s fish to retailers who are under pressure from environmental organisations to remove ‘unsustainable’ fish from their store shelves – i.e. maintain access to the market; r increased value for the product – i.e. the price premium; and r long-term sustainability of the resource, leading to long-term sustainability of employment in the fishery and associated industries. One concern that has often been raised is that the potential benefits of increased market share relative to noncertified competitors marketing the same species may be a temporary benefit if at some point all fisheries for a particular species become certified. There are several counterarguments. First, while the goal that all fisheries might eventually meet the standards needed for certification are admirable, practical considerations suggest that the likelihood that all fisheries of a particular species will become certified may be relatively low, depending on species, particularly for those species highly traded on the world market. Second, even if all capture fisheries of a particular species become certified, for some species the wild product competes with aquaculture product. For example, it may be many years into the future before 100% of all wild salmon (US, Japanese, Russian) is certified and competes with 100% certified aquaculture salmon, if ever. Finally, assuming that all capture fisheries of a particular species are certified, the global market for fish is very competitive and most fish compete not just with the same species from different sources, but also with similar fish of different species. So, for example, the entire whitefish complex of species is highly competitive – tilapia is increasingly competing successfully with whitefish species from capture fisheries. Certified hoki competes as a sustainable alternative in the European market with other whitefish products such as cod and haddock, which some might see as less sustainable (at least if they come from European sources) – even if the flavour of hoki is not as mild as cod or haddock. With a few exceptions, most species compete in the global market

BLBK019-Ward

54

June 2, 2008

20:38

Seafood Ecolabelling

and are substitutable to a large extent with other species, even if not to as great an extent as are the whitefish species (also see Chapter 17 for a discussion of possible substitutions). Thus, an ecolabel will be a means to differentiate a product, even in the unlikely event that all sources of a particular species become certified. As a result, it seems likely that ecolabelling as a market-based incentive will continue to be effective in contributing to the drive for environmental reforms within capture fisheries.

2.5 Conclusions and need for future research This chapter has considered the economics of ecolabelling at a variety of levels of the seafood market. This is presented from the perspective of the consumer, which is the level that has perhaps traditionally received the most focus because the consumer ultimately must demand sustainable seafood in order to provide the market-based incentive to producers to supply such products, and the perspectives of the intermediate market level of the processors and the retailers who up to now have been helping to create that consumer demand, and the fisheries themselves. While the fundamental theory of the economics of ecolabelling is not complex, application of the research to the ecolabelling of seafood is only at the inception stage, and much has yet to be done to answer some of the remaining key questions. First and perhaps foremost, now that a range of ecolabelled products has been in the marketplace, some for a considerable period of time, research on the actual market benefits of ecolabelling programmes needs to be conducted. This research should be conducted at all levels of the market. If the consumer is paying a premium, how much of that premium is being transmitted down the market chain to the ex-vessel level? How are market shares of certified fish being realigned relative to noncertified fish? Answers to these questions are very important for a number of reasons. For example, proof of market benefits, sufficient to cover costs of certification, will provide incentives to fisheries to sign on to assessments and attempt to remain certified through reassessments. Proof of market benefits, sufficient to cover costs, will provide incentives for the seafood industry to process or retail ecolabelled seafood. On a less positive note, if market research shows there are premiums being paid for certified products, programmes will need to ensure that their chain-ofcustody and traceability programmes are strong enough to withstand the potential for falsification of labels, i.e. product fraud. Second, virtually all the research conducted so far has focused on consumer demand for ecolabelled seafood from capture fisheries, while few has investigated consumer demand for aquaculture production from best practices. With proposals in the US for open-ocean aquaculture, the tremendous growth potential in aquaculture production worldwide and the potential growth in ecolabelling programmes for

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

20:38

The Economics of Ecolabelling

55

aquaculture production for several species, knowledge of consumers’ preferences with respect to aquaculture and aquaculture practices is essential to calculating benefits and costs of such programmes. Third, there has been much discussion surrounding the issue of the potential growth in the number of ecolabelling programmes globally for both aquaculture and capture fisheries. As the following chapters show, the MSC and GAA are not the only programmes or potential programmes and approaches. The GAA currently certifies shrimp farms for best aquaculture practices with plans for expansion to other species, while the WWF-US is engaged in a series of dialogues to identify criteria for sustainable aquaculture for several species (see www. worldwildlife.org/cci/aquaculture dialogues.cfm). Other competitive programmes may also develop in the future. On the capture fishery side, the MSC is currently the primary international programme; however, Iceland has discussed developing an ecolabelling programme and other national and international programmes may well develop as well. There may be advantages and disadvantages of competing ecolabelling programmes, but research is needed into the impact of multiple programmes on the consumer, and consumer demand for ecolabelled seafood to be able to evaluate the success of any such programmes. There are two key issues: (a) do consumers necessarily differentiate between aquaculture and wild seafood in terms of sustainability issues; and (b) do multiple ecolabels cause consumer confusion? Some of the research presented earlier focused on consumers’ trust in the certifier, but investigated the contrast between government certifiers versus nongovernmental (or environmental group) certifiers. Expansion of this research should consider whether consumers would become confused if there are multiple certifiers in the marketplace, what attributes of certifiers yield the greatest credibility with consumers/environmental groups/seafood industry, and if multiple seafood products in the same seafood counter with ecolabels from multiple certifiers would undermine the incentive of environmental reform by causing consumer confusion. Nevertheless, the sustainable seafood movement is here to stay. The sustainable seafood movement currently takes a wide variety of forms, including consumer boycotts, consumer guides, seafood ratings/wallet cards and ecolabelling programmes. From an economic standpoint, ecolabelling allows the opportunity to reward the ‘good players’, within the so-called ‘bad’ species. Rather than label all Chilean sea bass as bad – boycotting all Chilean sea bass regardless of the source and putting it on the red list of a seafood wallet card regardless of the source – an ecolabelling programme provides an opportunity for those Chilean sea bass fisheries that are conducting sustainable harvests, with a chain of custody that takes out the possibility of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fish from getting into the market chain, to be rewarded for their good practices. A boycott of all Chilean sea bass punishes the ‘good players’ together with the ‘bad players’ (Roheim & Sutinen 2006). Similarly, while shrimp and salmon farming have received a significant amount of bad press from the sustainable seafood movement, ecolabelling of products

BLBK019-Ward

56

June 2, 2008

20:38

Seafood Ecolabelling

coming from those farms that achieve generally agreed best aquaculture practices can reward those farms who are the ‘good players’ rather than label an entire industry as ‘bad’. Last, but not least, consumers benefit from being provided with the information to make informed choices in the marketplace, rather than having choices taken away from them.

References Akerlof, G.A. (1970) The market for ‘lemons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500. Aldrich, L. (1999) Consumer Use of Information: Implications for Food Policy. Agricultural Handbook No. 715. Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Anderson, L.G. (1977) The Economics of Fisheries Management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Caswell, J. (1998) How labelling of safety and process attributes affects markets for food. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 27, 151–158. Darby, M.R. & Karni, E. (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16, 67–88. FT.com (2006) Wal-Mart vows to buy eco-friendly fish: US sales will have ‘Sustainable’ label from Marine Stewardship Council, January 31. Available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11112245 [accessed on 18 February 2008]. Gordon, H.S. (1954) The economic theory of a common-property resource: the fishery. Journal of Political Economy, 62, 124–142. Gudmundsson, E. & Wessells, C.R. (2000) Ecolabeling seafood for sustainable production: implications for fisheries management. Marine Resource Economics, 15, 97–113. Holland, D. & Wessells, C.R. (1998) Predicting consumer preferences for fresh salmon: the influence of safety inspection and production method attributes. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 27, 1–14. Jacquet, J. & Pauly, D. (2007) The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries. Marine Policy, 31, 308–313. Jaffry, S., Pickering, H., Ghulam, Y., Whitmarsh, D. & Wattage, Y. (2004) Consumer choices for quality and sustainability labelled seafood products in the UK. Food Policy, 29, 215– 228. Johnston, R.J. & Roheim, C.A. (2006) A battle of taste and environmental convictions for ecolabeled seafood: a contingent ranking experiment. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31, 283–300. Johnston, R.J., Wessells, C.R., Donath, H. & Asche, F. (2001) Measuring consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: an international comparison. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26, 20–39. Kuhre, W.L. (1997) Environmental labelling marketing: efficient and accurate environmental marketing procedures. ISO 14020:1997. Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Lancaster, K.J. (1971) A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132–157.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

20:38

The Economics of Ecolabelling

57

Margolis, J. & Walsh, J. (2001) People and Profits? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Morris, J. & Scarlett, L. (1996) Buying green: consumers, product labels and the environment. Policy Study No. 217. Reason Foundation, Los Angeles, CA. National Research Council (1999) Sharing the Fish: Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Nelson, P. (1970) Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78, 311–329. Nelson, P. (1974) Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 729–754. Portney, P.R. (2005) Corporate social responsibility: an economic and public policy perspective. In: B. Hay, R. Stavins & R. Vietor (Eds) Environmental Protection and the Social Responsibility of Firms: Perspectives from Law, Economics and Business, pp. 107–131. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. Roheim, C.A. & Sutinen, J. (2006) Trade and marketplace measures to promote sustainable fishing practices. Issue Paper No. 3. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and the High Seas Task Force, Geneva, Switzerland. Stigler, G. (1961) The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy, 69, 213– 225. Teisl, M.F., Roe, B. & Hicks, R.L. (2002) Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from dolphin-safe labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43, 339– 359. UN (1993) Agenda 21: Earth summit – the United Nations programme of action from Rio. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division of Sustainable Development, New York. US EPA (1993) Status report on the use of environmental labels worldwide. EPA 742-R-93001. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. US EPA (1998) Environmental labelling: issues, policies, and practices worldwide. EPA 742-R-98-009. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Wessells, C.R. & Anderson, J.G. (1995) Consumer willingness to pay for seafood safety assurances. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 29, 85–107. Wessells, C.R., Johnston, R. & Donath, H. (1999a) US consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: results of a consumer survey. Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston. Available at: http://www.uri.edu/cels/enre/ecolabel.pdf [accessed on 18 February 2008]. Wessells, C.R., Johnston, R. & Donath, H. (1999b) Assessing consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: the influence of species, certifier, and household attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, 1084–1089. Wessells, C.R., Kline, J. & Anderson, J.G. (1996) Seafood safety perceptions and their effects on consumption choices under varying information treatments. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 25, 12–21.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

Chapter 3

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries Rolf Willmann, Kevern Cochrane and William Emerson∗

3.1 The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and capture fisheries The mission of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department of FAO is to facilitate and secure the long-term sustainable development and utilisation of the world’s fisheries and aquaculture. As a UN organisation, FAO is acutely aware of the fundamental social and economic role played by the fisheries sector in:

r meeting global and national sustainable food security; r providing self- and paid employment for fishing communities as a means of alleviating poverty in fishing communities and stemming rural/urban drift;

r contributing to national and international trade; and r generating national income.

Underpinning these basic social and economic objectives is the requirement for fisheries and aquaculture to be responsibly managed. This implies preventing overfishing, coordination, and delivery of effective research and extension, and the empowerment of people, especially women, in tasks for which many FAO members are not fully prepared. The Fisheries and Aquaculture Department therefore provides, on the request of members, technical assistance in all aspects of fisheries and aquaculture management and development. The department promotes policies and strategies aiming at sustainable and responsible development of fisheries inland and in the oceans. For this purpose, the department provides discussion fora, information, legal and policy frameworks, codes and guidelines, options for strategies, scientific advice, training material, etc. For this purpose, FAO:

∗

The views expressed in this chapter are those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), nor any of its members.

58

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries

59

r collects, analyses and disseminates information on the sector operations (catch, value, prices, fleets, employment);

r develops methodology, assesses and monitors the state of wild resources and elaborates resource management advice;

r monitors and advises on the development and management of aquaculture; r provides socio-economic analysis of fisheries and assists in the elaboration of development and management polices and strategies and institutions;

r supports and assists a network of regional fishery commissions; and r monitors and advises on technology development, fish processing and trade.

3.2 The origins of the ecolabelling debate in FAO The impetus for addressing the issue of ecolabelling of fisheries products in FAO arose from the launch of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) initiative by Unilever PLC/NV and the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) in 1997. In their joint Statement of Intent, WWF (the world’s largest non-profit conservation organisation) noted its wish for ‘a new approach to ensure more effective management of marine life’, while Unilever PLC/NV, a major buyer of frozen fish and manufacturer of many of the world’s best-known frozen-fish products expressed ‘its commitment to long-term fish stock sustainability to ensure a future for its successful fish business’. The reactions to the initiative of WWF and Unilever were mixed. While it was applauded by some industry groups, conservation organisations and governments, many fisheries stakeholders and governments were initially sceptical about the intentions of this unlikely partnership between a big corporate player in the fish processing and retailing business and an environmental NGO which until that time was perceived as having greater interests in marine conservation than supporting the fishing industry. In a report prepared for its Committee for Fisheries, FAO (1996) observed that industry associations such as the International Fishmeal & Oil Manufacturers Association (IFOMA) and the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA) had very serious reservations about MSC and other similar initiatives and took a stance of opposition. Others, like the Ground Fish Forum, had not taken a definite stance but expressed concern. The Latin American Fisheries Development Organization (OLDEPESCA) rejected the MSC initiative in a resolution adopted at the Ministerial Meeting in Havana on 6 November 1996. The report also noted that the initiative was seen positively by countries that had made major efforts towards improved management and believed that they may have good candidates for labelling among their national fisheries (e.g. Australia, New Zealand). The International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), an India-based international non-governmental organisation mainly advocating interests of smallscale fishers in developing countries, was a vocal sceptic of the MSC. ICSF’s first concern was the practicability of applying universal standards that, in the ICSF’s

BLBK019-Ward

60

June 2, 2008

19:8

Seafood Ecolabelling

view, had been developed without due consultation with fishers’ organisations and that did not take into consideration the diversity of fisheries in the developing countries. ‘It would be almost impossible to show, as required by the MSC Principles and Criteria, that a developing country fishery is subject to an effective management system’ wrote the ICSF’s Executive Secretary, Sebastian Mathew (cited in Mathew 2004). FAO (2000) considered that the problems would include the preponderance of small-scale and artisanal fisheries, where management is more complex because of the large number of participants and their lack of alternative paid-employment opportunities; the multispecies characteristics of tropical fisheries; the lack of financial resources needed to retire significant amounts of excess fishing capacity; and the limited technical and managerial capacities of government agencies in developing countries. At the intergovernmental level, many delegations at the 22nd Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI), Rome, 17–20 March 1997, ‘questioned the transparency of the [MSC] process, the responsibility and competence for the development of principles and criteria for sustainable fisheries; as well as the source and use of scientific evidence in this process. Several delegations also referred to possible discrimination against products on the market and considered that MSC could pose a threat to developing countries and a potential trade barrier leading to market advantages to some States’. (FAO 1997, paragraph 37). There was no consensus at that time that FAO should address this subject. The issue was raised again at the 6th Session of the COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, Bremen, 3–6 June 1998, where Norway, on behalf of the Nordic countries, submitted a proposal that FAO organise a technical consultation to investigate the feasibility and practicability of developing non-discriminatory, globally applicable, technical guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine fisheries. This proposal was endorsed by the committee and FAO convened a technical consultation in October 1998. This technical consultation of government-nominated experts and observer organisations did not reach an agreement on the practicality and feasibility of FAO drafting technical guidelines for ecolabelling of marine fisheries products. However, it reached a consensus that if an agreement was eventually reached on the feasibility of elaborating guidelines for ecolabelling, it should be consistent with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Article 11.1.11 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries calls upon States to ‘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 traded’. Article 11.2.2 states that ‘[i]nternational trade in fish and fishery products should not compromise the sustainable development of fisheries and responsible utilization of living aquatic resources’. Improved information on the origin of fish and fishery products can result in more informed purchasing behaviour by consumers and intermediaries, taking into account the status of specific fish stocks. References to the environment

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries

61

and related aspects are also contained in Articles 11.1.12, 11.2.3, 11.2.4, 11.2.13 and 11.3.2. In addition, the 1998 Technical Consultation considered that any agreement on guidelines for ecolabelling should also consider the following principles:

r be of a voluntary nature and market driven; r be transparent; r be non-discriminatory, do not create obstacles to trade and allow for fair competition;

r establish clear accountability for the promoters of schemes and for the certifying bodies in conformity with international standards;

r there should be a reliable auditing and verification process; r recognise the sovereign rights of States and comply with all relevant laws and r r r r r

regulations; ensure equivalence of standards between countries; be based on the best scientific evidence; be practical, viable and verifiable; ensure that labels communicate truthful information; and must provide for clarity.

At the origin of several of these principles are provisions of several international instruments including the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The 1998 Technical Consultation also noted that any guidelines that might be developed ‘should aim to provide globally applicable minimum criteria to be included in any eco-labelling scheme’ (paragraph 22), as well as expressing unanimity that FAO would have no role to play in the implementation of any scheme. COFI discussed the outcome of the technical consultation at its 23rd Session in February 1999. While most delegations recommended that FAO should initiate further work on elaborating technical aspects of ecolabelling, other delegations felt that FAO should not get involved in the issue and should leave it to the other specialist bodies. This position was maintained by the 24th Session of COFI in 2001. The matter was again considered at the 8th Session of the COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (February 2002), which laid the basis for a change in the position by the 25th Session of COFI (February 2003). The Committee ‘underlined that on the basis of scientific information and with the coordination of governments, FAO should develop guidelines on ecolabelling . . . ’. (paragraph 39). Several factors are likely to have influenced this change in position by a relatively small number of countries which had earlier opposed the development of international ecolabelling guidelines. One is that the issue of labelling requirements for environmental purposes had become, since the 4th WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, November 2001, an issue of special focus in the work of the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE). At Doha, WTO members instructed the CTE to

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

62

19:8

Seafood Ecolabelling

undertake further work on labelling requirements for environmental purposes and in particular to:

r look at the impact of ecolabelling on trade; r examine whether existing WTO rules stood in the way of ecolabelling policies; and

r identify any WTO rule that would need to be clarified. In its final report (July 2003), most CTE members agreed that voluntary, participatory, market-based and transparent environmental labelling schemes were potentially efficient economic instruments that informed consumers about environmentally friendly products. Importantly, the report noted that ecolabelling tended, generally, to be less trade restrictive than other instruments. However, it also noted that environmental labelling schemes could be misused for the protection of domestic markets. Hence, these schemes needed to be non-discriminatory and not result in unnecessary barriers or disguised restrictions on international trade. Another important factor that might have tipped the balance in favour of the development of FAO ecolabelling guidelines was the fact that the MSC programme was moving successfully ahead and encompassing an increasing number of fisheries and certified product lines. There was also an increasing number of large wholesale and retail chains which announced green procurement guidelines for their fishery products and commitments in the medium term to only procure fish from sustainable sources, including MSC certified fisheries. Thus, it became clear that important segments of market demand in the large fish-importing countries were moving towards certified products. A ‘green image’ became an important strategy to maintain and expand market shares in the food products industry. Thus a consensus emerged among FAO members on the need for international harmonisation of criteria and procedures and related issues such as equivalence and mutual recognition. This would avoid ecolabelling programmes in fisheries discriminating against certain producers, kinds of fisheries or countries. It would also help to avert a situation that may arise where a series of competing ecolabelling schemes were to apply different standards and criteria causing confusion rather than providing for more informed purchasing behaviour by consumers (Cochrane & Willmann 2000).

3.3 The development of the FAO ecolabelling guidelines With the blessing of its members, FAO initiated the process of developing international ecolabelling guidelines for fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries. Following its usual practice FAO first convened a consultation of experts in their individual capacities in October 2003. The consultation brought together experts from different disciplines, regions and institutional backgrounds (government, industry, conservation organisations, small-scale fishers) of whom several

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries

63

took part in subsequent negotiation stages as members of their government delegations or as non-governmental observers. The report from the Expert Consultation (FAO 2003) provided a background document for the subsequent Technical Consultation. In the FAO context, the difference between an expert consultation and a technical consultation is that the former is attended by experts in their individual capacities while governments nominate experts in the latter. The Technical Consultation of government-nominated experts initiated the intergovernmental negotiations proper, in October 2004. As discussed below, a number of issues of concern and controversy could not be resolved during that meeting and another round of consultation was held to try to reach an agreement on these just prior to the 26th Session of COFI in March 2005. Negotiations continued at the side of COFI in a small group representing the different regions and interest groups. COFI adopted the final text by consensus but a few country delegations expressed reservations that have been reflected in the COFI Report (FAO 2005a). In the following section, selected provisions of the guidelines (FAO 2005b, http:// www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0116t/a0116t00.htm) are presented to explain the key intent of the guidelines and comment on the evolution of the text through the various drafting and negotiation stages. Their normative basis is indicated in the guidelines themselves and include in particular, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, relevant guides of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and provisions of the WTO Technical Agreement on Barriers to Trade, especially Annex 3 Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards. The text of this chapter follows the structure of the guidelines – Scope, Principles, General considerations, Terms and definitions, Minimum substantive requirements and criteria, and Procedural and institutional aspects.

3.3.1 Scope The initial mandate by COFI in 2003 was to develop guidelines for the ecolabelling of marine capture fisheries only. This was extended to inland capture fisheries by COFI in 2005. Differences in the two sets of guidelines are shown below in brackets, or in bold or in a separate paragraph. It should be noted that the inland capture fisheries ecolabelling guidelines are only available in a draft version produced by a meeting (held in May 2006) of experts participating in their individual capacities. The text of paragraph 1 on the scope reads as follows: These guidelines are applicable to ecolabelling schemes that are designed to certify and promote labels for products from well-managed marine [inland] capture fisheries and focus on issues related to the sustainable use of fisheries resources.

BLBK019-Ward

64

June 2, 2008

19:8

Seafood Ecolabelling

The exclusion of social and economic or health and safety aspects from the scope of the guidelines is notable. This is in keeping with the views expressed by most governments at the 1998 FAO Technical Consultation. It would have been very unlikely, if at all possible, that international consensus among governments could have been reached on standards relating to social and economic factors. As a significant portion of production from inland waters is derived from culturebased and enhanced fisheries (see ‘Terms and Definitions’ below for definitions of these terms), the inland fisheries expert consultation included these fisheries within the definition of inland capture fisheries. They noted that ecolabelling of these fisheries would help protect aquatic biodiversity and promote market access to inland capture fishery products (FAO 2006).

3.3.2 Principles The full set of principles elaborated by the 1998 Technical Consultation was maintained with some amendments and reordering. Three principles were added, and references to the Convention on Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands were added for the inland fisheries guidelines. In the draft inland fisheries ecolabelling guidelines, Principle 2.1 has been divided into two parts as follows: 2.1a. Be consistent with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the Convention on Biodiversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and other relevant international instruments. 2.1b. Take into account the provisions of relevance for the management of inland capture fisheries contained in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.

The text of the principles reads: 2. The following principles should apply to ecolabelling schemes for marine [inland] capture fisheries: 2.1 Be consistent with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and other relevant international instruments. 2.2 Recognize the sovereign rights of States and comply with all relevant laws and regulations.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries

65

2.3 Be of a voluntary nature and market-driven. 2.4 Be transparent, including balanced and fair participation by all interested parties. 2.5 Be non-discriminatory, do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade and allow for fair trade and competition. 2.6 Provide the opportunity to enter international markets. 2.7 Establish clear accountability for the owners of schemes and the certification bodies in conformity with international standards. 2.8 Incorporate reliable, independent auditing and verification procedures. 2.9 Be considered equivalent if consistent with these guidelines. 2.10 Be based on the best scientific evidence available, also taking into account traditional knowledge of the resources provided that its validity can be objectively verified. 2.11 Be practical, viable and verifiable. 2.12 Ensure that labels communicate truthful information. 2.13 Provide for clarity. 2.14 Be based, at a minimum, on the minimum substantive requirements, criteria and procedures outlined in these guidelines. 3. The principle of transparency should apply to all aspects of an ecolabelling scheme including its organizational structure and financial arrangements.

Principle 2.1 was included to give assurance that ecolabelling schemes will not contravene widely accepted or ratified international instruments. Principle 2.14 establishes the FAO guidelines as a minimum standard for any capture fisheries ecolabelling scheme. Whether the guidelines should be considered the international standard within the framework of WTO rules and regulations is open to interpretation for reasons discussed in greater detail in Wessells et al. (2001). WTO does not claim to be the appropriate forum for discussions on the general usefulness of ecolabelling schemes or what constitutes appropriate criteria for assessing sustainability. Indeed, WTO explicitly defers such issues to international agreements or bodies with appropriate expertise (Wessells et al. 2001). The precise formulation of Principle 2.6 was controversial until nearly the end of the negotiations that took place during the process of adoption of the guidelines in COFI. Some felt that its intent was already reflected in Principles 2.1 and 2.5. Others argued that the idea of gaining better access to international markets through ecolabelling schemes should be a principle by itself. Whereas Principle 2.1 already refers to consistency with WTO rules, a reiteration of this requirement was felt necessary for Principles 2.5 and 2.6. This emphasis needs to be interpreted in the context of the debate in WTO, in particular within its CTE, on the applicability of WTO rules to environmental labelling (see Wessells et al. 2001). In relation to this subject, it needs to be recalled that the tuna-dolphin and shrimp-turtle trade disputes have likely caused sensitivities among several countries and a cautious attitude to the potential implications of international ecolabelling guidelines, should a trade dispute arise.

BLBK019-Ward

66

June 2, 2008

19:8

Seafood Ecolabelling

3.3.3 General considerations The intention of this section is to create, to the extent possible, an equal playing field among countries by, inter alia, recognising the special conditions and requirements of developing countries and countries in transition on the one hand, while calling for one unique minimum standard on the other, in order to avoid any notion of superior or inferior categories of ecolabelled fish and fishery products. The section also addresses the view of many governments that they should be fully involved, not just individually but also as members of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), in ecolabelling schemes. It recognises that governments play, or need to play, a paramount and often indispensable role in fisheries management. Some proponents of the MSC, in its initial phase, pictured private ecolabelling schemes as an alternative to weak, failing or entirely absent fisheries management by government. This was succinctly expressed by Sutton and Whitfield (1996): ‘Governments, laws and treaties aside, the market itself will begin to determine the means of fish production’. Most government observers did not have such a sanguine view of ecolabelling. A perhaps over-optimistic outlook on fisheries ecolabelling was the basis of the commitment of Unilever to only purchase certified fish and fishery products from 2005 onwards. Unilever was not able to stand by its commitment and in the meantime has divested itself from most of its food business, including fish. In the strict sense, RFMOs do not exist for inland capture fisheries, but the inland fisheries experts agreed to adopt throughout the text of the guidelines the wider term of regional fishery body (RFB) applicable to both RFMOs as well as to bodies having purely advisory functions. 4. Ecolabelling schemes should take into account that principles, minimum substantive requirements, criteria and procedures set out in this document will apply equally for developed, transition and developing countries. 5. Bearing in mind that ecolabelling schemes relate to fisheries management, and rights and duties of States, it is recognized that the involvement of States in ecolabelling schemes is desirable and should be encouraged. It is also recognized that States and, as appropriate, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) [regional fishery bodies (RFBs)] may develop ecolabelling schemes in a manner consistent with these guidelines. Ecolabelling schemes should give full consideration to the recommendations and advice by States, and, as appropriate, RFMOs [RFBs]. 6. In accordance with Article 5 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and recognizing that all countries should have the same opportunities, and in view of the special conditions applying to developing countries and countries in transition and their important contribution to international fish trade, it is acknowledged that in order to benefit from applying ecolabelling schemes, states, relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and financial institutions should provide developing countries and countries in transition with

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries

67

financial and technical assistance to develop and maintain appropriate management arrangements that will allow them to participate in such schemes. Such assistance should also consider direct support towards the often high costs of accreditation and certification. Development agencies and donor institutions are encouraged to support FAO in facilitating financial and technical assistance to developing countries and countries in transition.

3.3.4 Terms and definitions The section draws heavily on terminology, definitions and standards agreed within the framework of the ISO dealing with general requirements on accreditation and certification. It also contains a series of definitions that were specifically developed by the expert and technical consultations for the marine and inland capture fisheries ecolabelling guidelines. The concept of the unit of certification (paragraph 25) is of special interest as it provides for the possibility of a fishery becoming certified which harvests only a component of a stock. As will become evident in the next section, for purposes of gauging the health of the stock, however, the impact of all fisheries on this stock would have to be taken into account. The inland fisheries experts concluded that geographic boundaries of inland fisheries did not need to be defined. ‘As fish stocks contributing to river, lake and reservoir fisheries may also, in some cases, be caught in estuarine and marine areas, the consideration of impacts of all fisheries utilizing a stock or stocks across their entire area of distribution, including all life stages, is an important element of assessing the state of the “stock under consideration”’ (FAO 2006). The expert consultation on inland fisheries added terms for culture-based fisheries, enhanced fisheries and introduced species. These are indicated below in Arabic letters next to the paragraph numbers. The enhancement features of many inland fisheries are the critical distinction from marine capture fisheries. The experts drew a line between capture fisheries and aquaculture that permits artificial stocking but not artificial feeding. 7. For the purpose of these International Guidelines, the following terms and definitions apply. Accreditation 8. Procedure by which a competent authority gives formal recognition that a qualified body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks. (Based on ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996, 12.11) Accreditation body 9. Body that conducts and administers an accreditation system and grants accreditation. (Based on ISO Guide 2, 17.2) Accreditation system 10. System that has its own rules of procedure and management for carrying out accreditation.

BLBK019-Ward

68

June 2, 2008

19:8

Seafood Ecolabelling

11. Note – Accreditation of certification bodies is normally awarded following successful assessment and is followed by appropriate surveillance. (Based on ISO Guide 2, paragraph 17.1) Arrangement 12. A cooperative mechanism established by two or more parties, be they governmental, private or non-governmental entities. Audit 13. A systematic and functionally independent examination to determine whether activities and related results comply with planned objectives. (Based on Codex Alimentarius, Principles for Food Import and Export Certification and Inspection, CAC/GL 20) Certification 14. Procedure by which a third party gives written or equivalent assurance that a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements. Certification may be, as appropriate, based on a range of inspection activities which may include continuous inspection in the production chain. (Based on ISO Guide 2, 15.1.2 and Principles for Food Import and Export Certification and Inspection, CAC/GL 20) Certification body 15. Competent and recognized body that conducts certification. A certification body may oversee certification activities carried out on its behalf by other bodies. (Based on ISO Guide 2, 15.2) Chain of custody 16. The set of measures which is designed to guarantee that the product put on the market and bearing the ecolabel logo is really a product coming from the certified fishery concerned. These measures should thus cover both the tracking/traceability of the product all along the processing, distribution and marketing chain, as well as the proper tracking of the documentation (and control of the quantity concerned). Complaint 17. An objection by a person or body to a decision regarding accreditation, de-accreditation, certification or de-certification. Conformity assessment 18. Any activity concerned with determining directly or indirectly that relevant requirements are fulfilled. 19. Notes: Typical examples of conformity assessment activities are sampling, testing and inspection; evaluation, verification and assurance of conformity (supplier’s declaration, certification); registration, accreditation and approval as well as their combinations. (ISO Guide 2, 12.2) Culture-based fisheries 19b. Capture fisheries which are maintained solely by stocking with material originating from aquaculture installations. Decision 20. Any resolution by an accreditation or certifying body or arrangement concerning the rights and obligations of a person or body.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries

Ecolabelling scheme 21. Ecolabelling schemes entitle a fishery product to bear a distinctive logo or statement which certifies that the fish has been harvested in compliance with conservation and sustainability standards. The logo or statement is intended to make provision for informed decisions of purchasers whose choice can be relied upon to promote and stimulate the sustainable use of fishery resources. Enhanced fisheries 21b. Fisheries that are supported by activities aimed at supplementing or sustaining the recruitment of one or more aquatic organisms and raising the total production or the production of selected elements of a fishery beyond a level which is sustainable by natural processes. It may entail stocking with material originating from aquaculture installations. Inland capture fisheries 21c. The removal of fish and other aquatic organisms from natural or enhanced inland fisheries, but excluding aquaculture. Introduced species (alien species-Article 8(h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity.) 21d. Species or races that are intentionally or accidentally transported and released by humans into an environment outside their natural range. Standard for certification 22. Document approved by a recognized organization or arrangement, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, with which compliance is not mandatory under international trade rules. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method. (Based on TBT agreement, Annex 1, paragraph 2) In these guidelines, unless otherwise qualified, the word standard refers to a standard for certification. The standard for certification will include requirements, criteria and performance elements in a hierarchical arrangement. For each requirement, one or more substantive criteria should be defined. For each criterion, one or more performance elements should be provided for use in assessment. Standard-setting organization or arrangement 23. Organization or arrangement that has recognized activities in standard setting. (Based on ISO Guide 2, paragraph 4.3) Stocking 23b. Refers to the repeated injection of fish into an ecosystem in which a population of that species already exists from one external to it. Third party 24. Person or body that is recognized as being independent of the parties involved, as concerns the issue in question. (ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996) Translocations (transfers) 24b. Movement of individuals of a species or population, intentionally or accidentally transported and released within their natural range.

69

BLBK019-Ward

70

June 2, 2008

19:8

Seafood Ecolabelling

Unit of certification 25. The ‘unit of certification’ is the fishery for which ecolabelling certification is called for. The certification could encompass: the whole fishery, where a fishery refers to the activity of one particular gear-type or method leading to the harvest of one or more species; a sub-component of a fishery, for example a national fleet fishing a shared stock; or several fisheries operating on the same resources. The certification applies only to products derived from the ‘stock under consideration’ (see paragraph 30). In assessing compliance with certification standards, the impacts on the ‘stock under consideration’ of all the fisheries utilizing that stock or stocks over their entire area of distribution, including all life stages, are to be considered.

3.3.5 Minimum substantive requirements and criteria for ecolabels This section of the guidelines sets out the minimum substantive requirements and criteria for assessing whether a fishery can be certified and awarded an ecolabel. In accordance with the guidance by the 1998 Technical Consultation, it keeps open the option for ecolabelling schemes to apply additional or more stringent requirements and criteria. The drafting of this section was informed by the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the principles and criteria of the MSC as well as those elaborated by the Nordic Technical Working Group on Fisheries Ecolabelling Criteria (2000), a group set up by the Nordic Council of Ministers in 2000. Minimum requirements are specified for each of three areas: management systems, target stocks, and ecosystem considerations. This is in keeping with the idea that both the process and the outcome of management need to be considered. The three areas broadly correspond to those addressed in the three MSC principles. The requirements and criteria exclude economic, social or safety-at-sea considerations. This section acknowledges that conventional stock assessment methods may not be possible nor necessarily appropriate in all cases and that ‘less elaborate’ methods may be used (paragraph 32a). However, attention is also drawn to the need to consider the amount of uncertainty in the final outcome of the assessment and to apply the precautionary approach accordingly. The section explicitly recognises the value of traditional knowledge provided its validity can be objectively verified. The inland fisheries experts felt the validity of ‘best scientific evidence’ also needed to be objectively verified (FAO 2006). There was considerable concern amongst some countries, especially some developing countries about the inclusion of ‘Ecosystem considerations’ in the minimum requirements. This arose from the knowledge that, in many countries, current knowledge on ecosystems and ecosystem impacts is weak because of the lack of data and research due to financial and human resources constraints. The

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries

71

inclusion of ecosystem considerations could therefore become an effective barrier to obtaining an ecolabel and consequently a barrier to trade. This section, within the core of the guidelines, therefore represents a reasonable compromise between the position of some countries seeking more stringent requirements and criteria and others that wished to see ecosystem considerations entirely omitted from the guidelines. In reference to the modifications to this section, shown in bold, the inland fisheries expert group notes that enhanced fisheries may involve a number of techniques, some of which are permanent or nearly so, e.g. species introductions and habitat modification, and some of which could be temporary. The sustainability of the target species, therefore, could depend on the maintenance of the enhancements. In the special case of culture-based fisheries, where the fishery is solely maintained by stocking from aquaculture facilities, the experts concluded that sustainability of the target species would not be the focus of an ecolabelling programme. Instead, sustainability would relate primarily to assuring optimal production in the natural ecosystem and management in a manner to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem functions (FAO 2006). Introduction 26. The following sets forth the minimum substantive requirements and criteria for assessing whether a fishery can be certified and an ecolabel awarded to a fishery. Ecolabelling schemes may apply additional or more stringent requirements and criteria related to sustainable use of the resources. The requirements and criteria presented below are to be based on and interpreted in accordance with the current suite of agreed international instruments including the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the Convention on Biodiversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, as well as provisions of relevance for the management of inland capture fisheries contained in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. 27. Requirements are specified for each of three areas: management systems, the stock or stocks for which certification is being sought (subsequently referred to as ‘stock under consideration’), and consideration of serious impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem including stock enhancement activities. Criteria and related measurable performance indicators and a corresponding monitoring system should be established in order to assess the conformity of the fishery concerned with the requirements and the criteria of the ecolabelling scheme. In developing and applying the criteria and assessing the conformity of the fishery with the standard of certification, the views and opinions of States, RFBs and FAO should be fully considered. Management systems 28. Requirement: The fishery is conducted under a management system which is based upon good practice and that ensures the satisfaction of the requirements and criteria described in Paragraph 29. The management system and the fishery

BLBK019-Ward

72

June 2, 2008

19:8

Seafood Ecolabelling

operate in compliance with the requirements of local, national and international laws and regulations, including the requirements of any regional fisheries management agreement that directs the management of the target stocks. 29. The following criteria will apply to management systems for any fisheries, but it must be recognized that special consideration needs to be given to small-scale fisheries, which are prevalent in inland capture fisheries, with respect to the availability of data and with respect to the fact that management systems can differ substantially for different types and scales of fisheries. 29.1 Adequate and reliable data and/or information are collected, maintained and assessed in accordance with applicable international standards and practices for evaluation of the current state and trends of the stocks (see below: Methodological aspects). 29.2 In determining suitable conservation and management measures, the best scientific evidence available is taken into account by the designated authority, as well as consideration of relevant traditional knowledge, provided its [their] validity can be objectively verified, in order to evaluate the current state of the ‘stock under consideration’ in relation to, where appropriate, stock specific target and limit reference points. 29.3 Similarly, data and information, including relevant traditional knowledge, provided its [their] validity can be objectively verified, are used to identify adverse impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and timely scientific advice is provided on the likelihood and magnitude of identified impacts (see Paragraph 31). 29.4 The designated authorities adopt appropriate measures for the conservation and sustainable use of the ‘stock under consideration’ based on the data, information, and scientific advice referred to in the preceding bullets. Short-term considerations should not compromise the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources. 29.5 An effective legal and administrative framework at the local, national or regional level, as appropriate, is established for the fishery and compliance is ensured through suitable mechanisms for monitoring, surveillance, control and enforcement (see also Paragraph 6). 29.6 In accordance with the Code of Conduct Article 7.5, the precautionary approach is being implemented to protect the ‘stock under consideration’ and the aquatic environment. This should take due account of stock enhancement procedures. Inter alia this will require that the absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures. Further, relevant uncertainties are being taken into account through a suitable method of risk assessment, including those associated with the use of introduced or translocated species. Appropriate reference points are determined and remedial actions to be taken if reference points are approached or exceeded are specified. 29.7 In the case of culture-based and enhanced fisheries, an effective framework should be established to link the fishery management

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries

system with its supporting aquaculture production system (see also 30b). 29.8 In the case of enhanced fisheries, the fishery management system should take due regard of the natural production and other components of the aquatic ecosystem. ‘Stocks under consideration’ 30a. Requirement: The ‘stock under consideration’ is not overfished, and is maintained at a level which promotes the objective of optimal utilization and maintains its availability for present and future generations, taking into account that longer term changes in productivity can occur due to natural variability and/or impacts other than fishing. In the event that biomass drops well below such target levels, management measures (Code of Conduct Article 7.6), including measures to favourably enhance the environment, should allow for restoration within reasonable time frames of the stocks to such levels. This requirement also pertains to species introductions or translocations that have occurred historically or in accordance with international guidelines, which become established as part of the natural ecosystem. 30b. In case of enhanced and culture-based fisheries, the cultured component of the ‘stock under consideration’ is managed and developed according to relevant provisions of Article 9 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, especially in relation to the protection of the environment, the conservation of genetic diversity, disease control, and quality (fitness for survival) of stocking material, and managed to achieve optimal production. 30c. In the case of enhanced fisheries, natural production components of the ‘stock under consideration’ is managed in accordance with Article 7 of the Code of Conduct and maintained at a level that promotes the objective of optimal utilization. Ecosystem considerations 31. Requirement: Adverse impacts of the fishery and any associated culture and enhancement activity on the ecosystem should be appropriately assessed and effectively addressed. Enhanced and culture-based fisheries will be managed to ensure biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems are conserved and endangered species protected. Significant scientific uncertainty is to be expected in assessing possible adverse ecosystem impacts of fisheries, including culture and enhancement activities. This issue can be addressed by taking a ‘risk assessment/risk management approach’. For the purpose of development of ecolabelling schemes, the most probable adverse impacts should be considered, taking into account available scientific information, and local knowledge provided that its [their] validity can be objectively verified. Those impacts that are likely to have serious consequences should be addressed. This may take the form of an immediate management response or further analysis of the identified risk. In this context, full recognition should be given to the special circumstances and requirements in developing countries

73

BLBK019-Ward

74

June 2, 2008

19:8

Seafood Ecolabelling

and countries in transition, including financial and technical assistance, technology transfer, and training and scientific cooperation. Methodological aspects Assessing current state and trends in target stocks 32a. There are many ways in which state and trends in stocks may be evaluated, that fall short of the highly quantitative and data-demanding approaches to fish stock assessment that are often used in developed countries. Use of less elaborate methods for stock assessment frequently used for inland capture fisheries should not preclude them from possible certification for ecolabelling. However it should be noted that, to the extent that the application of such methods may result in greater uncertainty about the state of the ‘stock under consideration’, more precautionary approaches to managing such resources could be required which may necessitate lower levels of utilization of the resource. There are a variety of management measures commonly used in small-scale or low-value fisheries that nonetheless can achieve quite adequate levels of protection for stocks in the face of uncertainty about the state of the resource. 32b. Stock assessment of enhanced or culture-based fisheries should not focus on the hatchery output but more on the recruitment of hatchery fish to the fishery and on the contribution of natural reproduction.

3.3.6 Procedural and institutional aspects This part of the guidelines addresses the three principal procedural and institutional matters that any ecolabelling scheme should encompass: (1) the setting of certification standards, (2) the accreditation of independent certifying bodies and (3) the certification that a fishery and the product chain of custody are in conformity with the required standard and procedures. Except for the issue of an independent panel as an ultimate appellate body, consensus on this part of the guidelines was reached early in the negotiation process. From the beginning of the ecolabelling discussion in FAO forums, countries supported the principle of independent and transparent third-party certification through competent, reliable and accountable bodies. Many of the provisions in this section are geared towards assuring the application of this principle. In this context, it is notable that some countries felt strongly the need for MSC to adjust its governance structure in order to assure complete independence between its functions as the owner and promoter of an ecolabelling scheme and the functions of accreditation and certification, including the sensitive aspect of dealing with complaints. In order to achieve consistency with the FAO guidelines, MSC has subsequently appointed an independent objections panel chair to ensure the impartiality of any panels formed to hear appeals against proposed certification decisions. This appointment served to separate the objections process and related decisions from the MSC’s Board of Trustees (MSC 2006).

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries

75

Further, there was broad consensus on the need to engage all interested parties in the standard-setting process in a consultative and participatory manner. A number of governments and industry groups felt that the MSC process did not accomplish this requirement in its initial phase. Options for governance structures The guidelines are not overly prescriptive on other aspects of the governance structure beyond the above-noted separation between ownership and accreditation functions. This allows for ecolabelling schemes to be established by a government, an intergovernmental organisation, a non-governmental organisation or a private industry association. There are also various options for the geographical range of a scheme – national, regional or international in scope (paragraph 37). Guidelines for the setting of standards for sustainable fisheries The setting of standards is among the most critical tasks of any ecolabelling scheme. The standards reflect the objectives for sustainable fisheries that are being pursued through the scheme. Standards comprise quantitative and qualitative indicators of the governance system or management regime of a fishery as well as of its outcome in terms of sustainable fisheries and conservation of marine fishery resources and related ecosystems (paragraph 40). The principal normative basis for the procedural requirements in standard setting are given by the WTO TBT, ANNEX 3 Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards and the ISO/IEC Guide 59 Code of Good Practice for Standardization of 1994. More recent work in this area has been done by the ISEAL Alliance which published in early 2006 the final version of a Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards (isealalliance.org). At the core of standard-setting norms are the ideas of consultation and participation of interested parties in a transparent and well-informed process of standard setting that provides for appropriate notification and minimum time periods for commenting. The functions of a standard-setting organisation or arrangement include the setting, reviewing, revising, assessing, verifying and approving of standards. Where there is no specialised body, the organisational structure of a standard-setting arrangement should include, inter alia, a technical committee of independent experts and a consultation forum whose mandates are well established (paragraphs 44 and 45). The guidelines explicitly identify the various interested parties that ideally should participate in the development of standards of sustainable fisheries. These include representatives of fisheries management authorities, the fishing industry, fishers’ organisations, the scientific community, environmental interest groups, fish processors, traders and retailers as well as consumer associations (paragraph 54). The

BLBK019-Ward

76

June 2, 2008

19:8

Seafood Ecolabelling

inland fisheries expert group added fishing communities and hatchery managers to this list of interested parties. An innovative feature is the requirement that in developing or revising a standard, an appropriate procedure should be put in place to validate the standard with respect to the minimum requirements for sustainable fisheries as laid out in the guidelines. There is also a call for standards to not encompass criteria or requirements that are of no relevance for sustainable fisheries or could cause unnecessary barriers to trade or mislead the consumer (paragraph 63). Guidelines for accreditation The purpose of accreditation is to provide assurance that certification bodies responsible for conducting conformity assessments with sustainability standards and chain-of-custody requirements are competent to carry out such tasks. The guidelines lay down the requirements for accreditation organisations to perform this task professionally in a transparent, impartial, independent and accountable fashion. The primary normative basis is the ISO Guide 61, General Requirements for Assessment and Accreditation of Certification/Registration Bodies, 1996. The conditions for maintaining, extending, suspending and withdrawal of accreditation are also spelled out in the guidelines as is the responsibility of the accreditation body in relation to the use of accreditation marks, symbols and logos and how to prevent their misleading use in advertisements, etc. Past experience with ecolabelling schemes points to the importance of having solid procedures to address and resolve complaints in an impartial and independent manner. In this regard, the guidelines spell out the need for the establishment of an impartial and independent committee which in the first instance should attempt to resolve any complaints through discussion or conciliation and if this fails, in the second instance provide a written ruling to the accreditation body and the parties concerned (paragraph 83). The guidelines, however, explicitly state that this provision would not exclude recourse to other forms of legal and administrative processes as provided for in national legislation or international law (paragraph 86). Guidelines for certification Certification is an integral and indispensable part of any ecolabelling scheme. In respect to fisheries ecolabelling schemes, it provides assurance to buyers and consumers that a certain fish or fishery product comes from a fishery that conforms to the established standard for a sustainable fishery. In keeping with the principles, impartial certification based on an objective assessment of all relevant factors ensures that ecolabels convey truthful information. This is a necessary condition for the ecolabelling scheme to attain its objectives. The guidelines provide for two types of certification, certification of the fishery itself, including the production of stocking material in the case of inland fisheries,

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries

77

and certification of the chain of custody between the time the fish is harvested and the time the fish or fishery product is sold to the final consumer. The chain-ofcustody assessment examines whether adequate measures are in place to identify fish from a certified fishery at subsequent stages of fish processing, distribution and marketing. While separate certificates may be issued for the fishery and for the chain of custody, fish and fishery products that are labelled to indicate to the consumer their origin from a sustainable fishery require both types of assessments. As is the case for accreditation organisations, the guidelines lay down the requirements for certification bodies to perform their tasks professionally in a transparent, impartial, independent and accountable fashion. The primary normative basis include ISO Guide 62, General Requirements for Bodies Operating Assessment and Certification/Registration Of Quality Systems 1996, ISO/IEC Guide 65, General Requirements for Bodies Operating Product Certification Systems 1996, and Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on TBT. Beyond the general ISO requirements appropriately adapted to the case of sustainable fisheries, the guidelines contain specific provisions that acknowledge the great diversity of situations and conditions under which fisheries are conducted and managed. To ensure non-discrimination, the access to the services of a certification body should be open to all types of fisheries whether managed by a regional, governmental, parastatal or non-governmental fisheries management organisations or arrangement. Further, access to certification should not be conditional upon the size or scale of the fishery, nor should certification be conditional upon the number of fisheries already certified (paragraph 112). Non-discrimination in access to certification services is also the intent of the provision on the certification fee structure (paragraph 125). ‘In establishing the fee structure and in determining the specific fee of a certification assessment, the certification body should take into account, inter alia, the requirements for accurate and truthful assessments, the scale, size and complexity of the fishery or chain of custody, the requirement of non-discrimination of any client, and the special circumstances and requirements of developing countries and countries in transition’. Given the highly dynamic nature of fisheries, the guidelines contain detailed provisions on the maintenance, renewal and possible suspension and withdrawal of certification. They call for periodic surveillance and monitoring of the fishery and chain of custody at appropriate time intervals (paragraph 128), prompt notification by the client of intended changes to the management of the fishery or chain of custody (paragraph 129), and reassessments in the event of changes significantly affecting the status and management of the fishery or chain of custody, or if analysis of complaints and other information indicates that the certified fishery and/or chain of custody no longer comply with the required standard (paragraph 130). The period of validity of a certificate should not exceed 5 years in the case of a fishery and 3 years in the case of the chain of custody (paragraph 131). Given regular monitoring and auditing exercises and a full reassessment, the validity of certification can be renewed for the same time periods (paragraph 132).

BLBK019-Ward

78

June 2, 2008

19:8

Seafood Ecolabelling

The guidelines place the responsibility on the certifying body to specify the conditions under which certification may be suspended or withdrawn (paragraph 133). If a certification is withdrawn or suspended, the certifying body should require that a certified fishery and/or chain of custody discontinues use of all advertising matter that contains any reference thereto and returns any certification documents. The certification body has also the responsibility of informing the public about the withdrawal or suspension after the appeals process is exhausted (paragraph 134). Assurance of the chain of custody is complex in fisheries because of the often large number of fishing vessels, landing places, and localities of processing, marketing and distribution. In recognition of rapid technological progress in traceability, the physical segregation of certified from non-certified fish and fishery products was not considered to be an indispensable requirement in all instances, as had initially been proposed by the expert consultation. However, the guidelines provide for detailed chain-of-custody requirements and monitoring and auditing procedures by the certification body (paragraphs 135–140). In recognition of the proliferation of unsubstantiated product claims and logos in respect to fish and fishery products, the guidelines are very specific about the responsibilities of the certification body, accreditation body or owner of the ecolabelling scheme over the use and control of certification claim, symbol and logo. They are required to ensure that symbols or logos should not relate to claims that are of no relevance for sustainable fisheries or could cause barriers of trade or mislead the consumer (paragraph 141). Only products from certified sources can carry a mark/claim/logo (paragraph 142), no fraudulent or misleading use can be made with their use and display (paragraph 143), and suitable action must be taken to deal with incorrect references to the certification system or misleading use of symbols and logos found in advertisements, catalogues, etc. (paragraph 145). Resolution of complaints and appeals Within the procedural part of the guidelines, this section on the resolution of complaints and appeals relating to certification has been intensely discussed in the negotiation process. The Expert Consultation proposed to include in this section an independent panel external to the ecolabelling scheme as an ultimate appellate body. This panel would consider in the last instance appeals of a finding or decision concerning the conformity assessment only, thus excluding the chain-of-custody assessment, that would have been convened and serviced by FAO. All costs relating to it would have had to be borne by the appellant. The idea of the independent panel was derived as an added precaution to ensure independence in addressing complaints, particularly given the high proportion of fish and fishery products internationally traded, the likelihood of cross-border complaints and the often paramount role of governments in fisheries management. Governments, as a general rule, do not like to be assessed by, and subject to decision

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:8

FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries

79

making through, non-governmental entities, especially on a matter as complex and controversial as fisheries management. There was no unanimous support for the inclusion of an independent panel in the FAO guidelines. Several countries felt that possible recourse to other forms of legal and administrative processes as provided for in national legislation or international law would provide adequate safeguards to seek redress in the case of flawed rulings within the ecolabelling scheme’s internal complaint and appeal procedures. Other countries expressed a strong desire for an independent panel, probably because of concerns about access to other systems of ruling, e.g. the courts, and timely rulings. However, after careful examination and review of past practices, it became evident that FAO’s envisaged role in servicing such an independent panel would be in conflict with the organisation’s basic text. While FAO’s basic text foresees the convening of expert panels, their constitutional purpose, as evidenced also by past practice, is to provide advice to the Director-General on specific subjects. The independent panel, on the other hand, is an appellate body whose purpose is of a judicial nature and not to give advice to the Director-General.

3.4 Conclusions In the area of ecolabelling, the FAO guidelines for wild-capture fisheries are a unique voluntary international instrument that establishes minimum standards in procedural and substantive terms. The guidelines can help to prevent the proliferation of non-credible ecolabels, contribute to the creation of an equal playing field by recognising the special conditions and requirements of fisheries in developing countries and countries in transition, provide clarity on equivalence of ecolabelling schemes and non-discrimination, avoid unnecessary barriers to trade and establish the legitimacy of ecolabelling applied to fisheries. Time will show whether the guidelines will succeed in all these aspects. One area of special attention for FAO will be the promotion of participation of small-scale fisheries of developing countries in ecolabelling schemes. These fisheries support millions of fishers and contribute directly and significantly to poverty alleviation and food security. The sustainability of these fisheries is critical for maintaining and enhancing the contribution of fisheries to national well-being.

References Cochrane, K. & Willmann, R. (2000) Eco-labelling in fisheries management. In: M.H. Nordquist & J.N. Moore (Eds) Current Fisheries Issues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, pp. 583–615. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague/Boston/London.

BLBK019-Ward

80

June 2, 2008

19:8

Seafood Ecolabelling

FAO (1996) Initiatives of non-governmental organizations regarding sustainable resource use and environmental protection in fisheries. Document No. COFI/97/Inf.12. FAO, Rome. Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/w3954e.htm [accessed on 18 February 2008]. FAO (1997) Report of the 22nd Session of the Committee on Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Report No. 562 FIPL/R562. FAO Fisheries Department, FAO, Rome. Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/w6408e.htm [accessed on 18 February 2008]. FAO (2000) The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome. FAO (2003) Report of the expert consultation on the development of international guidelines for ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries FAO Fisheries Report No. 726, FAO, Rome, Italy, 14–17 October 2003. FAO (2005a) Report of the Twenty-Sixth Session of the Committee on Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Report No. 780, FAO, Rome, 7–11 March 2005. FAO (2005b) Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries. FAO, Rome. FAO (2006) Report of the expert consultation on the development of international guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from inland capture fisheries. FAO Fisheries Report No. 804, FAO, Rome, 23–26 May 2006. Mathew, S. (2004) Sustainable development and social well-being: which approach for fish trade? Bridges Monthly Review, 4(3), 11–14. Available at: http://www.ictsd.org/English/BRIDGES4-3.pdf [accessed on 18 February 2008]. MSC (2006) Fish4Thought. Marine Science Council, London. Nordic Technical Working Group on Fisheries Ecolabelling Criteria (2000) An arrangement for the voluntary certification of products of sustainable fishing. Final Report, Copenhagen, 21 June 2000. Sutton, M. & Whitfield, C. (1996) A powerful arrow in the quiver. Samudra, 16, 33–34 Wessells, C.R., Cochrane, K., Deere, C., Wallis, P. & Willmann, R. (2001) Product certification and ecolabelling for fisheries sustainability. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 422, FAO, Rome.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

Chapter 4

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme Rupert Howes

4.1 Introduction The plight of the world’s fish stocks is increasingly in the headlines. Hardly a day goes by without some reference to collapsing stocks, threatened livelihoods and the negative impacts of modern fishing practices on the marine environment. A recent and, for some, a controversial report in the journal Science suggested that a ‘business as usual approach’ to the global fishing industry could precipitate the collapse of the remaining commercial stocks by as early as 2048, as ecosystems around the world became impoverished, depleted and damaged from overfishing (Worm et al. 2006). Top predators such as marlin, swordfish and tuna are considered to be under particular threat (Worm et al. 2005). This growing media attention and interest is not surprising, given the scale and increasingly visible nature of the global fishing effort. Commercial fishing is the last major industry that harvests a wild and renewable resource for food. Its export value is over $70 billion annually (FAO 2006), sustaining over 200 million livelihoods around the world. It also provides the main source of animal protein for millions of people, particularly in developing countries. Hence, in one way or another, the world’s commercial fishing industry touches all of us. Global catches of fish and invertebrates have increased significantly this century from just 19 million tonnes a year in the 1950s to around 100 million tonnes a year now. However, catch rates have reached a plateau, and with 50% of the world’s fish stocks now classified as fully exploited and a further 25% considered to be overfished, depleted or in a fragile state of recovery (FAO 2006), it is hard to see how we can meet the growing demand for seafood around the world for today’s population let alone meet the basic needs and requirements for a global population that could grow from 6 to 9 billion people by the end of this century (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 1999). Whilst aquaculture or fish farming offers some potential to fill this gap, it is not a panacea. Fish farming has its own set of sustainability challenges not least the underlying sustainability of the feed, largely derived from wild-capture fisheries, used in the production systems SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

81

BLBK019-Ward

82

June 2, 2008

21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

and so-called ‘ranching’ operations for some of the popular species such as salmon, cod and tuna (Huntington et al. 2004, WWF 2004a, b). The pressure has never been greater on wild fish stocks, and there is a desperate need to find workable solutions to what has been described by UK Fisheries Minister Ben Bradshaw as the second biggest sustainability challenge we all face after global climate change (BBC News Online 2004). Many factors are contributing to accelerating the problem. The demand for seafood is increasing significantly in many developed-world countries as more consumers respond to the health-related messages to eat more fish (Lantin 2004, Bakalar 2006). The risk to global stocks is also compounded by the growing problem of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activity – pirate fishing – which has contributed to the depletion of commercially valuable fish stocks around the world including Baltic cod and several species of Pacific tuna (Oceanic D´evelopement, Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd and MegaPesca Lda 2005; WWF Denmark 2006). With no accurate estimates of what is being taken illegally, it is virtually impossible to set meaningful allowable catch quotas or to ensure that stocks are being maintained at suitably precautionary levels to prevent overfishing. There is no single solution to this global challenge to wild fish stocks. It is going to take comprehensive and practical national and international policies, cooperation and regulation particularly in relation to the management of high seas fisheries, and enforcement and a concerted effort to eradicate pirate fishing. It will also require a transformation in global seafood markets. As highlighted by the United Nations Environment Programme Director (Box 4.1), we must utilise the power

Box 4.1 Achim Steiner, United Nations Environment Programme: Support for the MSC The new executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme has called for a “new era” beyond campaigning in which environmental concerns are integrated fully into economic market regulations. Achim Steiner, who takes up his post on Thursday, told the Financial Times that ‘after 30 years of [raising] public awareness [about the environment] we have the legislation and the facts but we are not touching the core of the economic transactions in our societies. . . .In order to integrate environmental concerns into economic regulations, governments and businesses should ‘alter the incentive structures in markets’, said Mr Steiner. ‘We must focus more on how markets can be made to work, how markets can [incorporate environmental aspects to] make informed decisions’. He cited as a good example of this public-private partnership schemes, such as Unilever’s work with WWF, the conservation group, to create the Marine Stewardship Council, which promotes sustainable fishing (Financial Times, 12 June 2006).

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme

83

of the market to reward and promote sustainable fisheries management and to empower consumers to make the best environmental choice in their seafood purchases. Getting the price signals and incentives right and transforming markets is not an alternative to better public policy but it appears to be an increasingly effective and powerful tool to complement policy interventions and regulatory measures that are employed by national governments and international jurisdictions. It is for these reasons that Unilever PLC, at the time one of the largest purchasers of frozen seafood, and the international conservation organisation WWF joined forces in 1997 to establish the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Both organisations had a long-term interest in the future health and productivity of the marine environment and both wanted to see what a credible marine certification and ecolabelling programme could deliver in terms of shifting global seafood markets to a more sustainable footing. This chapter provides an overview of the MSC, the organisation’s history, evolution, governance and track record to date, highlighting the key challenges the organisation has faced over its first 8 years of independent existence. The chapter builds on the earlier descriptions of the programme (such as those within Phillips et al. 2003) and concludes with a review of the MSC’s strategic priorities for the coming 3–5 years and an assessment of what might be achieved over this period.

4.2 The MSC background and history Whilst Unilever and WWF’s precise motives and rationale for working collaboratively differed, both organisations wanted similar outcomes – to secure the long-term health and productivity of the oceans. For Unilever, the wake-up call came with the collapse of the Grand Banks cod fishery off Newfoundland in the early 1990s. This once plentiful cod fishery has disappeared along with an estimated 40 000 livelihoods. And although the cod fishery has been closed since 1995, the cod have not returned (Kurlansky 1999). For Unilever (owner at that time of the Birds Eye and Iglo brands) the implications were obvious – no cheap, plentiful and secure supplies of frozen seafood meant no frozen fish fingers, no business and no profits. Ensuring the sustainability of their core raw material base (frozen seafood) upon which their entire business model depended was clearly a strategic business priority, and enlightened self-interest of the very best kind. For WWF, part of the motivation was a growing frustration with traditional approaches to public policy reform and advocacy to deliver real, lasting and measurable improvements in the marine environment. What could a credible and marketbased programme achieve to complement ongoing policy reform and advocacy work?

BLBK019-Ward

84

June 2, 2008

21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

The organisations came together in the mid-1990s and the MSC was launched in 1997, becoming a fully independent non-profit organisation in 1999. The MSC standard for sustainable fishing was developed over the period 1997–1999 and involved over 300 international stakeholder consultations with input from government scientists, the marine conservation community, academics and the industry. From the beginning, accessibility for developing world fisheries was a prominent issue with the stakeholders from developing countries that were represented in the consultations. This has remained a strong area of activity (see below). Today, the MSC is a registered UK charity with non-profit status in the US and Australia. The MSC has a staff of 35 professionals operating from four offices around the world in London, Seattle, Sydney and Tokyo (the Tokyo office opened in April 2007). A separate trading arm – Marine Stewardship Council International – handles the MSC’s registered trademark and logo-licensing activities, with net profits from the company going to the MSC charity.

4.3 How the MSC programme works 4.3.1 The concepts The MSC’s approach is very simple – fisheries voluntarily apply to be assessed by independent, third-party certification bodies against the MSC’s rigorous environmental standard for sustainable fishing. If a fishery passes and is certified, then companies sourcing fish from that fishery can apply to use the MSC’s blue ecolabel on seafood products bearing the following statement: This product comes from a fishery which has been certified to the Marine Stewardship Council’s environmental standard for a well-managed and sustainable fishery (www.msc.org).

The ecolabel is not necessarily applied to all the products from certified fisheries, even though they meet the MSC standard. So, while a fishery may become certified, its products may or may not carry the MSC ecolabel, depending on how sensitive the market is considered to be to the use of the ecolabel (see Chapter 1 for the distinction between certification and ecolabelling). This is a commercial decision for the companies selling seafood products, but no company may publicly claim their fish is MSC certified except by authorised use of the MS ecolabel. The MSC standard for sustainable fishing is an internationally recognised set of principles for measuring the management and sustainability of fisheries and, as noted above, was developed through extensive global consultation with fisheries experts between 1997 and 1999. The standard comprises three measurable principles: the condition of the fish stock, the impact of the fishery on the marine ecosystem and the quality of the fishery management system (MSC 2002, May et al. 2003). The programme is also the leading marine certification and labelling programme that is fully consistent with the FAO (United Nations Food and

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme

85

Agriculture Organization) Voluntary Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish (FAO 2005).This means the MSC embodies the following objectives:

r third-party fishery assessments utilising scientific evidence; r transparent processes with built-in stakeholder consultation and objection procedures; and

r standards based on the sustainability of target species, ecosystems and management practices. The MSC certification programme is voluntary and is open to all fisheries, whatever their type, size or location. It is up to the independent certifiers to determine whether or not the applicant fishery meets the MSC standard. If a fishery does, a certificate is awarded for 5 years subject to annual surveillance audits, which can if necessary be supplemented by additional on-site visits and inspections. Fisheries can lose their certificates if they are found to no longer be meeting the standard. The first fishery to complete its assessment – the Western Australian rock lobster fishery – was certified in March 2000 and recertified in 2006. There are now 22 fully certified fisheries around the world. These range from the enormous Alaska pollock fishery (see Chapter 13), the world’s largest whitefish fishery certified in 2004, to small-scale community-based and developing world fisheries such as the Baja California lobster fishery in Mexico (see Chapter 12). Interest in certification increased significantly in 2006 and 2007, and the MSC now estimates that there are about 60 individual fisheries currently engaged at some stage in the independent assessment process (Table 4.1). Together, these fisheries account for about 7% of the total wild edible fish catch – about 4 million tonnes of seafood including 42% of the world’s wild salmon catch and nearly one-third of the world’s annual prime whitefish catch. With growing concern about fraud, mislabelling and pirate fishing, the traceability of a product is becoming an increasingly important consideration for the global seafood industry. To address this concern, MSC requires that all ecolabelled products are subject to a thorough and complete ‘chain of custody’ or traceability audit before the seafood product can carry the MSC label. Chain of custody ensures that all fish products carrying the MSC ecolabel are part of an audited supply chain and can be traced back to a certified fishery. All companies trading MSC-labelled fish must be certified as meeting MSC’s chain of custody standard. This ensures, for example, that fish wholesalers, processors and packers keep MSC-certified fish separate from non-certified fish and apply the MSC ecolabel correctly. This is a vital assurance for fish buyers and consumers, and is key to maintaining consumer confidence in the MSC ecolabel. The MSC operates a third-party certification and labelling programme (see Chapter 1). MSC does not certify anything and has no financial interest in the certification process, either of fisheries or chain of custody. This is essential for credibility and also, as noted above, is a requirement of the FAO minimum guidelines for credible marine ecolabelling and certification programmes. MSC’s impartiality as a

BLBK019-Ward

86

June 2, 2008

21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

Table 4.1

MSC certified fisheries and fisheries in assessment (April 2007).

Fishery

Certified?

Certified/assessed tonnage 2006

North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee sea bass, UK

In assessment

7

Maryland striped bass, USA

In assessment

1 025

Burry Inlet cockles, UK

Yes

3 500

Lakes and Coorong fisheries, Australia

In assessment

Not available

Pacific cod freezer longline: Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands, Alaska, USA

Yes

84 733

Oregon Dungeness crab, USA

In assessment

10 455

California Dungeness crab, USA

In assessment

Not available

Kyoto Danish seine snow crab, Japan

In assessment

220 (joint with flounder)

Hastings Fleet Dover sole (trammel net), UK

Yes

72

Hastings Dover sole trawl and gill-net fishery, UK

In assessment

Not available

Kyoto Danish seine flathead flounder, Japan

In assessment

220 (joint with snow crab)

South African hake

Yes

134 433

Chilean hake

In assessment

42 608

Pacific halibut (Alaska/Washington/ Oregon), USA

Yes

23 964

Canadian Pacific halibut (British Columbia), Canada

In assessment

5 277

Thames herring (Blackwater), UK

Yes

121

Hastings fishing fleet herring and mackerel, UK

Yes

10 (joint pelagic)

North Sea herring (Pelagic Freezer-Trawler Association), Netherlands

Yes

160 000

North Sea herring Swedish pelagic fishery

In assessment

4 600

New Zealand hoki

Yes

100 000

Western Australia rock lobster, Australia

Yes

10 500

Mexican Baja California spiny lobster, Mexico

Yes

1 300

North eastern sea fisheries committee lobster, UK

In assessment

469

Southwest handline mackerel, UK

Yes

1 750

Hastings fishing fleet herring and mackerel, UK

Yes

10 (joint pelagic)

Mackerel ice fish, Australia

Yes

1 200

Nephrops Loch Torridon, UK

Yes

120

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme Table 4.1

87

(continued)

Fishery

Certified?

Certified/assessed tonnage 2006

Lake Hjalmaren ¨ pikeperch, Sweden

Yes

166

Pollock Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands, Alaska, USA

Yes

1 520 000

Pollock Gulf of Alaska, USA

Yes

80 000

Sablefish/black cod US North Pacific sablefish, Alaska, USA

Yes

18 102

Norwegian North East Arctic saithe, Norway

In assessment

175 500

Norwegian North Sea saithe, Norway

In assessment

61 090

German North Sea saithe

In assessment

Not available

Alaska salmon, USA

Yes

320 380

British Columbia salmon, Canada

In assessment

25 608

California Chinook salmon, USA

In assessment

2 832

Gulf of California sardines

In assessment

Not a Total Allowable Catch fishery

Scallops Patagonian, Argentina

Yes

42 000

Canadian northern prawn trawl fishery

In assessment

68 000

Gulf of St Lawrence northern shrimp

In assessment

28 880 (estimate)

Oregon pink shrimp, USA

In assessment

7 174

Toothfish South Georgia, UK

Yes

3 556

Tuna American albacore tuna, USA

In assessment

3 600

Abbreviations: NESFC, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee; PFTA, Pelagic Freezer-Trawler Association; TAC, Total Allowable Catch.

standard-setting organisation was further enhanced when the accreditation function was handed to an independent organisation, Accreditation Services International, in 2006. Accreditation Services International, based in Bonn, now deals with all applicant certification bodies to ensure that they are capable of carrying out assessments against MSC’s fisheries and chain-of-custody standards. The current versions of the standards are Fisheries Certification Methodology Version 6, September 2006, and Chain of Custody Methodology Version 2, August 2005 (www.msc.org). Concerns have been raised about the time it takes to complete individual fishery assessments, and also about the costs of certification. However, as noted elsewhere in this chapter, these costs have to be compared to the benefits of certification including market access, preference in the market, meeting buyer’s expectation, and for some fisheries, the creation of a modest price premium. The business case is getting stronger and stronger as more and more retailers and processors around the world build in the requirement for MSC certification into their procurement policies. Grants can also be available to cover some, or in a few cases, even all the costs of the independent assessment process. For example, half the costs for

BLBK019-Ward

88

June 2, 2008

21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

assessment of European fisheries can be met from relevant EU grants available in each member state. Potential client fisheries can also reduce the costs of assessment by ensuring quotes are obtained from at least two if not three of the independently accredited certification bodies. And costs can be minimised by proactive management of the assessment process in terms of ensuring relevant data is captured and made available to the assessment teams when required and that contracts are precise in terms of timelines and deliverables. There are currently four certification bodies accredited to certify fisheries as meeting the MSC standard (www.msc.org), and another four are undergoing accreditation. Nine certification bodies are accredited to issue chain-ofcustody certificates, with another three seeking accreditation. Guidance for fishery clients on how to choose a certification body and how to minimise costs during the assessment process is made available on MSC’s website. The MSC also provides detailed guidance to businesses preparing for chain-of-custody certification, in the ‘MyMSC’ handbook (MSC 2006c). The time and length of fishery assessments and their associated costs are also understandably influenced by the size, location and complexity of each individual fishery coming forward into the assessment process. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the direct assessment costs (the costs payable to the certifier) can be as low as $20 000 for small community-based fisheries and increase to perhaps $200 000– 300 000 for the largest fisheries. MSC does not normally know the cost of assessments, as contracts are commercially confidential between fishery clients and their chosen certifier. Beyond the direct assessment costs, clients and management agencies can also incur additional costs in terms of their own staff time and management costs related to the assessment. There are also costs as a result of implementing specific improvements required through the assessment process (the ‘conditions’) to reduce or minimise the risk or likelihood that the fishery will no longer meet the MSC standard. The MSC has no direct financial interest in the fishery or chain-of-custody certification process. However, the MSC is able to recover a component of its own costs to run and administer the programme through the requirement of logo licensees to pay a volume royalty fee for the use of the logo on consumer-facing packaging. This fee is paid to MSC’s trading company, Marine Stewardship Council International, which gifts any surplus back to the Charity. There is no charge for charitable, educational or public sector use of the logo. Logo license agreements can only be issued to companies that have a valid chain-of-custody certificate, and the charges are based on a fixed annual fee plus, if the product is intended for consumers, 0.1% of sales of MSC-labelled fish. For the year ended April 2007, logo licensing generated less than 6% of MSC’s income needs (Plate 4.1). As the MSC grows and expands, it is generally recognised that this license fee will need to increase to enable the organisation to develop a more sustainable funding model and to provide the resources to reinvest in its systems and procedures to both protect and promote the brand.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme

89

4.3.2 Implementing the programme Once a fishery client has decided to apply for assessment against the MSC standard, it appoints an independent certification body to provide a brief evaluation of the likelihood of the fishery meeting the MSC standard. This pre-assessment and its findings are confidential and allow the fishery to make changes, if necessary, to improve its chances of success in a full assessment. After the pre-assessment, a client fishery can choose to go forward into the more detailed and thorough full assessment process, discontinue with the assessment altogether, or take time out to implement necessary improvements identified during pre-assessment, such as the need to reduce bycatch, develop an environmental risk assessment or undertake a new stock assessment, to ensure the fishery will be more likely to pass the full assessment. In some cases fisheries will implement significant improvements between the pre- and full assessment. It is at this point, as MSC contributes to creating a market that increasingly only wants sustainable seafood, that the greatest environmental gains are likely to be delivered. The challenge for the MSC is how to monitor and present these gains – which can include, for example, academic research projects to improve understanding of fish stocks, improved training for crews (e.g. to recognise endangered species), changes to fishing areas or times and changes in the way that fishing gear is used so that its impact on marine habitats is minimised – given the confidential nature of pre-assessments. After the fishery enters full assessment, the entire process becomes very transparent and inclusive (Figure 4.1). In undertaking a full assessment, certification bodies follow the detailed requirements set out in the MSC’s Fishery Certification Methodology (FCM). Key stages include as follows:

r Selecting the assessment team: These are the independent experts recruited by the certification body to assess the fishery. They are usually chosen for their knowledge of specific issues affecting the fishery. r Defining the ‘assessment tree’: Following the 3 principles and 23 criteria set out in the MSC standard for sustainable fishing, the assessment team drills down into each criteria to identify specific performance indicators that reflect the unique circumstances of the fishery. An assessment tree could, for example, have a total of 80–100 performance indicators. For each performance indicator, the team will also define scoring guideposts, against which the fishery’s performance is measured. r Peer review and stakeholder consultation on the draft report: The certification body assembles the assessment information into a single draft report which, following peer review, is published on the MSC’s website. r Publishing the final report and determination: The certification body incorporates any changes generated through public consultation and publicly determines if the fishery meets the MSC standard.

Figure 4.1

Yes

Performance indicators and scoring guideposts developed and fishery assessed against standard

Chain-ofcustody assessment and certification

Ongoing monitoring and audits

Draft assessment report produced

Pass

Final report and determination

Decision on certification

Peer review and stakeholder comment

Stakeholder input

Fail

Review practices

Objections procedure

Stakeholder input

MSC assessment/certification process

Product fr om certified fishery carries logo

Expert team assesses fishery

An outline of the steps in the MSC fishery assessment process.

Stakeholder input

Certification body assembles expert team

No

Decision to proceed to full assessment

June 2, 2008

Review practices

Confidential pre-assessment report produced

90

Pre-assessment undertaken by certification body

and selects independent certification body

Client decides to proceed with MSC certification

BLBK019-Ward 21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme

91

r Objections process: An optional procedure that can be utilised if stakeholders object to the final report and determination.

r Final determination: Decision to certify or not. r If the fishery is certified, annual surveillance audits are required to maintain the certification. A certification body may also undertake more frequent audits if the circumstances of the fishery change. The full assessment process is public and involves stakeholder involvement from the outset. Throughout the full assessment, key documentation is published on the MSC’s website to encourage stakeholder comment and maintain a transparent process. Where stakeholder consultation is required, certification bodies alert relevant stakeholders through direct contact. Additionally, the MSC has set up an email notification service for stakeholders who wish to be alerted to the progress of all MSC fisheries undergoing full assessment. Stakeholder consultation is sought for key stages of the assessment process including the selection of the assessment team, defining the ‘assessment tree’ and the draft assessment report itself. Finally, if a stakeholder has concerns about the outcome of an assessment (the determination), the MSC’s objections procedure allows for an independent panel to review the assessment and conclude the process.

4.4 The MSC vision and mission MSC’s overarching mission is to contribute to reversing the decline in global fish stocks, to deliver real and measurable improvements in the marine environment and to contribute to safeguarding the livelihoods of those involved in the fishing industry. The MSC programme aims to benefit a multitude of stakeholders – fishers in certified fisheries, consumers buying certified products (educating them and empowering them to use their purchasing power to effect change) and companies across the certified fish product supply chain. The MSC also aims to benefit society more widely through creating the conditions necessary to maintain the productivity of the marine environment for this and future generations, and thereby contribute to maintaining global food security in relation to fishery products. Given the urgent ecological imperative, the MSC intends to continue accelerating and expanding the delivery of its programme and to contribute to the World Summit for Sustainable Development commitment to restore depleted global fish stocks by 2015 (UN 2002). With growing support and recognition for the role that credible consumer-driven programmes like the MSC can play in transforming markets on to a more sustainable footing, the MSC has an exciting but finite window of opportunity opening up to achieve this ambition.

BLBK019-Ward

92

June 2, 2008

21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

The MSC is seeking to consolidate on past successes and to move the programme on to the point where its impact will become irreversible. We have in our sights the creation of a ‘tipping point’ where the MSC’s presence and profile in the marketplace creates a self-sustaining momentum. This will be built on ‘supply push’ as more and more fisheries come forward into the assessment process, and ‘demand pull’ as the commercial sector increasingly demands sustainable seafood choices in their purchasing decisions to meet both their own corporate responsibility obligations and their customers’ demands and expectations. Achieving this ‘virtuous circle’ will empower the MSC to deliver its key objectives more effectively and comprehensively as less well-managed fisheries, the so-called red and amber list fisheries, are increasingly encouraged to implement sustainable practices as the market for non-certified seafood shrinks. It is here where the most substantial environmental gains will be won as these fisheries implement changes in management practice to get them to the starting gate of an MSC assessment.

4.5 Progress to date The MSC is now in its eighth year of operation as a global, independent notfor-profit organisation (and registered charity). It seems increasingly clear that the credible and robust marine ecolabelling and certification programmes like the MSC are part of the solution to addressing the challenges of unsustainable fishing. As the business and ecological cases for certification get stronger, the momentum building up behind the MSC has increased considerably. The programme has finally overcome the challenge of ‘no supply-no market, no market-no supply’ as the volumes and range of species of certified seafood have continued to grow. In the last 2–3 years, certified fisheries have increased by nearly fourfold and the number of MSClabelled products available around the world has risen from under 200 in 2004 to nearly 700 in mid-2007. The momentum behind the programme continues to build as more fisheries come forward into the assessment process and the demand for both certified and ecolabelled seafood increases around the world (Table 4.1). Certified fisheries and labelled products are two of MSC’s key performance indicators, reflecting the joint success of our fisheries and commercial outreach activities in various countries around the world.

4.5.1 Europe In the UK, six fisheries have been certified against the MSC standard, including the South West mackerel handline fishery, and the Hastings pelagic and Dover sole fisheries (Plate 4.2). In recent years there has been greater interest, especially in Northern Europe, with the assessment (and certification) of Dutch and Swedish fisheries, and now fisheries located in Norway and Germany, and more UK fisheries, are in assessment. Several herring fisheries operating in and around the North Sea have also sought certification, and in June 2007 a Norwegian cod and

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme

93

haddock fishery announced that it would be seeking full assessment against the MSC standard.

4.5.2 North America The Alaska salmon fishery was initially certified in 2000 (undergoing reassessment since 2006), and for several years it has provided the most widespread MSC-labelled product. The world’s largest whitefish fishery – Alaska pollock – was certified in 2004. Alaska pollock has greatly helped to increase awareness of the MSC label, as it is widely used in popular fish dishes such as surimi and fish sticks. The American albacore tuna fishery – a traditional pole and line fishery operating in both the South and North Pacific oceans – is the first tuna fishery to undergo assessment against the MSC standard. There are several other US and Canadian fisheries in the assessment process including Maryland striped bass, California Dungeness crab, Oregon pink shrimp and two Canadian northern prawn fisheries.

4.5.3 Central and South America Two fisheries from Central and South America have been certified against the MSC standard. The Mexican Baja California lobster fishery was the first developing country, small-scale, community-based fishery to meet the MSC standard. The fishery is managed using a community-based system that involves cooperative management between fishers and the government, and its certification led to international acknowledgement of management efforts within the fishery. The enhanced image and reputation resulted in empowerment of the community and access to financial resources for research and for community development (see Chapters 12 and 15). In Argentina, the Patagonian scallop fishery was certified in 2006. This fishery is a closely regulated trawl fishery that was commended by the certification body for its effective management controls and close cooperation with local regulatory organisations.

4.5.4 Asia-Pacific region The majority of success for the MSC in this vast fish-producing and -consuming region has been in Australia, New Zealand and, more recently, Japan. The Western Australian rock lobster fishery was first certified in 2000, and the first three MSC-labelled products appeared in the same year. The certification of the New Zealand hoki fishery in 2001 (currently undergoing reassessment) has been well received in Europe where MSC-labelled hoki is a popular option, including the King Fish ‘burger’ in the Quick chain of fast food restaurants. More recently, the first Japanese fisheries entered full assessment (Kyoto Danish Seine Fishing Federation – snow crab and flathead flounder) and ten seafood products carrying the MSC-label have been launched in Aeon, one of Japan’s leading supermarkets. In

BLBK019-Ward

94

June 2, 2008

21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

2007 the MSC opened a Tokyo office and appointed a Japanese director to respond to the burgeoning demand for information and support.

4.5.5 Africa The only fishery on the continent of Africa to undergo full assessment against the MSC standard is the South Africa hake fishery, which was certified in 2004. The fishery has been successful at marketing its produce, especially frozen fillets, to domestic and international markets. It is hoped that more fisheries in Africa will participate in the MSC programme soon, and several African fisheries are preparing to take part in a pilot project that explores how the MSC programme can be made more accessible to small-scale and data-deficient fisheries (see below). Together, the fisheries engaged in the MSC programme (those certified and in assessment) represent 4 million tonnes of MSC-certified seafood annually. By key species groups, the MSC has achieved a considerable visibility. For example, 32% of the global prime whitefish catch and 42% of the global wild salmon catch are now either certified or under assessment. Importantly, there is engagement from both small- and large-scale fisheries in the programme from both the developed and developing world (Plates 4.3 and 4.4).

4.6 The ecological case There is a growing ecological case that suggests that MSC certification can encourage and deliver tangible improvements in the marine environment. A notable ‘success story’ relates to the South Georgia Patagonian toothfish (marketed as ‘Chilean sea bass’) fishery, which was certified as meeting the MSC standard in 2004. Whilst this species has suffered from overfishing in large parts of the Southern Ocean (with high levels of illegal fishing), the discrete South Georgia fishery that was certified implemented significant improvements in its management regime to enable it to achieve certification. These included the requirement for independent observers on each boat, closing the fishing grounds for half of the year and requiring lines to be set at night to reduce bird bycatch (Agnew et al. 2006). Wandering albatross bycatch was reduced from up to 6000 birds a year to generally less than 20 birds per year (see Chapter 11), prompting BirdLife International (MSC 2006b) to endorse the fishery’s management practices (Agnew et al. 2006). Whilst not all these changes can be attributed to MSC certification, the programme is designed to reward and encourage this sort of investment in best practice and therefore encourage other fisheries to make similar investments. Ongoing evaluation of the environmental benefits of the MSC programme (Agnew et al. 2006) is considering how trend data and key metrics can be developed and built into the fishery assessment process as a matter of routine monitoring and evaluation. The

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme

95

ideal will be to develop a comprehensive set of quantitative metrics, as well as qualitative indicators of change. Metrics are likely to focus on key issues that are of most concern to many stakeholders, including the status of target stocks, the fishing impacts on bycatch and endangered, threatened or protected species, and impacts on habitats.

4.7 Proof of concept 4.7.1 Retailers The increased supply, whilst still relatively small in terms of total wild-capture consumption, has prompted several retailers to significantly increase their commitment to sourcing MSC certified and ecolabelled seafood. This commitment in turn creates an additional ‘demand pull’ to attract yet more fisheries into the assessment process. Retailers such as Whole Foods Market in the US, Migros and Coop in Switzerland, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose in the UK have consistently stocked MSC fish products. However, in recent years these commitments have become more ambitious and proactive. Processors such as Young’s Seafoods in the UK have now placed MSC at the heart of their procurement and marketing strategies, aiming to be the first to market with new products from newly certified species and requiring the use of the logo on 100% of products from MSC-certified stocks. In February 2006, the US retail giant Wal-Mart announced that it would only purchase wild-caught seafood certified to MSC standard within 5 years. The company’s intention is to work with existing suppliers to encourage them to embrace sustainable practices. Rather than dramatically switching its supply chain, WalMart has invited WWF and Conservation International to help prepare its supply fisheries for assessment against the MSC standard. This is a practical example of a retailer using its leverage through the supply chain to achieve an outcome that will benefit marine conservation. Equally, fisheries can see a clear market incentive to become MSC certified. The ripple effect of the Wal-Mart announcement will be a greater availability and diversity of MSC-certified seafood across the whole marketplace, not just within Wal-Mart. In the UK, in the same period, consumer awareness of overfishing was on the rise, fuelled by reports by Greenpeace, the Marine Conservation Society and the National Consumer Council that created supermarket ‘league tables’ and exposed poor practices in fish sourcing. Asda, Wal-Mart’s UK subsidiary, matched its parent company’s commitment to source seafood from MSC-certified fisheries and further announcements have followed from other retailers. At a Sainsbury’s conference for fish suppliers in December 2006, the company presented its sourcing policy, which fast-tracks seafood from MSC-certified fisheries. More recently, Sainsbury’s estimated its sales of MSC-certified fish increased by over 200% in the last year and new products are expected to push this growth further. In January 2007, Marks

BLBK019-Ward

96

June 2, 2008

21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

& Spencer launched its 5-year sustainability strategy – ‘Plan A’ – which includes a target to source all wild fish from MSC or other independently certified sources by 2012 (M&S 2007). Many other retailers have indicated to their suppliers a ‘buyer preference’ for MSC-labelled fish. Elsewhere in Europe the trend is similar. In Germany, Metro, the world’s thirdlargest retailer, made a joint announcement with WWF Germany to increase availability of MSC-labelled seafood (Metro Group 2006). Deutsche See – Germany’s leading seafood supplier – launched a range of 19 MSC-labelled seafood products, and supermarkets Lidl and Aldi have all launched ranges of MSC-labelled fish. In the Netherlands, the fishmonger chain Fishes offers seven species of MSCcertified seafood – the widest range of MSC-certified species in the world – and in Sweden several retailers and seafood brands have launched new MSC-labelled products. Interest in marine ecolabelling and certification and in the MSC in particular also appears to have increased in the strategically important Japanese market. The MSC opened its Tokyo office in May 2007 and a Japan Times article that month reported that ecolabelling ‘was catching on in Japan’ with retailers and wholesalers. Aeon, Japan’s leading retailer, launched ten products from four certified fisheries in 2006 and has plans to significantly increase both range and number of MSC product lines. Labelled product is also available from Precce Premium, Kamewa Shouten and the Wal-Mart-owned Seiyu. Two Japanese fisheries, the Kyoto Prefecture flathead flounder and snow crab fisheries are also expected to complete their assessment processes in 2007. Interest and demand for domestic certified and ecolabelled product is anticipated to be very high which may encourage further interest in the MSC programme from the Japanese industry – for both their domestic and export markets.

4.7.2 Restaurants and foodservice The MSC is also expanding its work with the foodservice industry. In the UK, a project involving Brakes, a leading foodservice supplier, is bringing sustainable seafood to the menus of school canteens. The project – Fish & Kids – also provides allied educational materials for teachers to reinforce the sustainability message in the classroom. A dedicated website (www.fishandkids.org) supports the project and provides further teaching resources. Following the successful pilot of Fish & Kids with 350 schools in Surrey, further local education authorities have taken part, and MSC-labelled fish is now being regularly eaten by children at more than 1000 schools. We hope to see the replication of the programme throughout other schools in England, and ultimately in other countries. Independent restaurants, a bakery and a traditional seafront fishmonger in Hastings (UK), have achieved chain-of-custody certification and now support their local MSC-certified fisheries by serving or selling MSC-labelled fish to

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme

97

customers. Hastings Borough Council has stimulated interest in the MSC as part of a strategic economic regeneration initiative related to tourism in this historic fishing town on the south coast of England. This example of a relatively low-volume fishery utilising its MSC certification to improve the marketing of local produce and local identity contrasts with the large-scale impact of Wal-Mart’s sourcing decision, but it is nonetheless an important demonstration of market transformation and local economic sustainability in action.

4.7.3 Consumer awareness Raising consumer awareness of the MSC ecolabel has been limited historically by two factors. First, the supply of MSC-labelled seafood was limited, and this needed to be easily available in a given market before an expensive consumer awareness campaign could be justified. Second, the MSC’s relatively small operating budget and global scope has not been sufficient to launch such a campaign. Nevertheless, in the UK – the most mature market for MSC-labelled fish – there has been consistent media interest since the MSC’s inception and a steady increase in the availability of MSC-labelled seafood products. The support of celebrity chefs such as Rick Stein and opinion formers such as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales (Box 4.2) has given the MSC a relatively high profile in the media. Box 4.2

Key Supporters of the MSC

His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales: In addition to good science and good regulation, we need a system that harnesses the power of the consumer and provides economic incentives to well-managed fisheries. That is exactly what the MSC does, and that is why I have been such a strong supporter of its work right from the start (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ sci/tech/3530111.stm).

Rick Stein: To me nothing matters more in my supply and use of raw materials, than where they come from. I need to know which boats have been looking after the fish and the public have an ever-growing interest in that too. This is why the MSC is a gift from heaven (Source: http://www.msc.org/html/ni 43.htm).

A series of market research studies in 2005–2006 estimated that up to 7% of the UK public recognised the MSC ecolabel when prompted, an encouraging level of recognition given the very limited resources available to promote the MSC label

BLBK019-Ward

98

June 2, 2008

21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

to the public. More recently, the rapid rise in retailer and foodservice use of the MSC ecolabel, combined with a high level of sustained media interest, suggests that recognition of the MSC label could now be much higher. One indicator of the broad general interest in the MSC among target audiences (including, but not limited to, consumers) is the number of visitors to the MSC’s websites (www.msc.org, www.fishandkids.org). In 2005, the monthly average of web sessions across all of the MSC’s websites was 29 000. In 2006, this monthly average rose to 47 000 – a rise of 60% – and in the first half of 2007, this figure was regularly crossing the 60 000 mark. The goal of increasing public awareness of the MSC ecolabel and building the MSC as a global brand is recognised as being of increasing importance.

4.8 Strengthening the fishery assessment process The MSC has learnt a great deal through practical experience and has made significant improvements over the years in the guidance provided to certifiers on how to interpret and implement the MSC standard for environmentally responsible and sustainable fishing. The FCM, for example, has been updated six times since its first iteration in 1999 and is further supported by directives issued by MSC’s technical advisory board (TAB directives) that provide additional guidance on new issues that may arise between formal updates of the FCM. However, as noted above, some fishery clients have raised concerns about the length and costs of individual fishery assessments. Concerns have also been expressed about where ‘the bar’ has been set by individual certifiers for different fisheries. Have some fisheries been assessed to a higher or lower standard? In response to these concerns, MSC launched its quality and consistency project (Q&C) in 2006. This project has already delivered, after a series of international and expert workshops, detailed ‘statements of intent’ for the 23 performance criteria that sit below the three high-level principles that make up MSC standard for sustainable fishing. These are already helping to improve the clarity and ‘intent’ of the 23 criteria that together form the backbone of the MSC standard for environmentally responsible and sustainable fishing. Phase II of the project will develop standardised or default indicator sets and scoring guideposts (the assessment tree) that will be used from mid-2008 in all future fishery assessments. The development and roll-out of these default indicator sets will improve both the quality and also the consistency of individual fishery assessments. Greater standardisation in the assessment process could, perhaps, also offer the prospect of lowering the overall cost of a fishery assessment. It should be noted that MSC standard is not being changed or rewritten as part of this project. The Q&C project is simply delivering significantly improved operational guidance, based on the practical experience of over thirty fishery assessments

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme

99

and reassessments, on how the existing standard should be applied in all fishery assessments.

4.9 Traceability and assurance in the supply chain As with the MSC standard for sustainable fishing, the chain-of-custody standard and supporting documentation has been regularly improved and reviewed since its inception. Traceability is an increasingly important element of the MSC’s certification programme as food scares and other concerns have caused retailers to seek tighter control of the supply chain (Pastoor 2007). In February 2007, the MSC launched the traceability and assurance in the supply chain project to review the technical traceability requirements and verification procedures for seafood products carrying the MSC ecolabel (MSC 2007). The project started by establishing an expert working group to support and advise on the traceability and assurance in the supply chain project, inviting a range of stakeholders to take part, including members of the MSC’s technical advisory board (TAB), fisheries client group and commercial partners. The project will involve:

r product ‘trace backs’ down the supply chain from the point of sale to the source fishery;

r investigating additional verification methods of the supply chain and labelled products;

r training and guidance materials for MSC-accredited chain-of-custody auditors, and advice for seafood companies to support effective and consistent implementation; and r improved internal procedures for handling data, approving packaging and giving advice to new enquirers.

4.10 Developing world programme MSC is attempting to launch a global brand and certification programme to catalyse a shift to more sustainable fishing practices around the world. Consequently, particularly given the highly traded nature of seafood, it is vital that the assessment process is available and accessible by all fisheries including those in the developing world. Half of all seafood consumed in the developed world originates from developing country fisheries (Fliess et al. 2006). Unsustainable fishing practices pose an acute threat not only to the livelihoods of the millions of fishers in the developing world, but also to the food security of countless millions who depend on seafood for their only or primary source of

BLBK019-Ward

100

June 2, 2008

21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

protein. Fisheries in Mexico, Argentina and South Africa have been certified to the MSC standard, but even so, the level of participation from countries in transition and developing nations remains low. This is because there are several issues that are perceived as barriers to their participation.

4.10.1 The GASSDD project There are fisheries for key species in the developing world that will be challenging to bring forward to MSC certification. These may be fisheries that, for example, do not yet have the data and systems in place to be able to demonstrate that they meet the MSC criteria, or that lack the capacity at the local level to fully engage in the assessment process (see Chapter 8). To address some of these issues, the MSC is developing guidelines for the assessment of small-scale and data-deficient (GASSDD) fisheries. The GASSDD project is currently the MSC’s keystone initiative in the developing world. The MSC programme is designed to be accessible to all types of fisheries regardless of size, type or location. But many fisheries, mainly in developing countries and particularly small-scale artisanal fisheries, may not have sufficient data to enable assessments to be carried out against the MSC standard, as it is currently designed and operated. A lack of data, however, does not necessarily imply a lack of knowledge within the fishery or that the fishery is unsustainable. In order to find a way to allow small-scale and data-deficient fisheries to enter the certification process, without any loss of rigour in the assessment process, the MSC is developing guidelines to assist certification bodies involved in assessing such fisheries. A group of experts is working with the MSC to test and evaluate the use of various qualitative methods in the assessment of small-scale and data-deficient fisheries and to identify components that would lend themselves to use in MSC assessments for such fisheries. This first phase of the project developed a risk-based framework for fisheries assessment, and an interim guidance document was developed. The robustness of this guidance document has, more recently, been tested in a series of desktop audits and internal reviews. In 2007, this methodology will be piloted with several small-scale and data-deficient fisheries in the developing world and elsewhere. Such initiatives hold great promise for increasing the involvement of developing world fisheries in the MSC. However in order to maximise the benefits expected from these initiatives, there is a need for more fisheries in developing countries to be aware of and directly involved in the MSC. There is also a pressing need to disseminate information on how the MSC programme works, the benefits of certification and how stakeholders can engage in the MSC process. The MSC’s developing world programme works closely with WWF national offices in Africa, Asia and South America to reach out to fisheries and increase knowledge of the MSC programme and its potential value.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme

101

MSC governance structure The MSC executive supports all the bodies shown below and reports to the MSC board of trustees

TAB chair

Board of trustees

Advice, recommendations and, where delegated, decisions

Finance committee

Ad-hoc committees topic specific

Technical advisory board (TAB)

Standards

STC cochairs

Stakeholder council (Stc) National and regional working groups

Logo license and chain of custody

Opportunities for membership on committees

Groups and committees provide advice and feedback to the Board, stakeholder council, TAB and MSC executive

Figure 4.2

The MSC governance structure.

4.11 System of governance A board of trustees, supported by two advisory groups – the stakeholder council and the technical advisory board – governs the MSC (Figure 4.2). Additionally, ad hoc subgroups are sometimes formed to address specific issues that arise, with members selected from one or all of the MSC’s three governing bodies. The MSC executive staff team manages and implements the decisions of the governing bodies and delivers day-to-day work activities. A full list of the MSC board members, TAB members and stakeholder council is provided on the MSC website. The board is made up of up to 15 members chosen for their knowledge, expertise and ability to help guide the strategic development of the MSC. The board does not have a formal membership structure, but it is informally recognised that it should be balanced to reflect the MSC’s mix of stakeholders. The two cochairs of the stakeholder council are full members of the board of trustees (see http://www.msc.org/html/content 477.htm for a full list of members), and the chair of the TAB is a member of the board. A nominations committee (made up of existing board members) exists to identify potential board members and gathers suggestions from the TAB and stakeholder council. The stakeholder council comprises up to 40 members drawn from the following constituencies: science and academic interests, marine and general conservation, consumer groups, developing nation interests, catch and supply interests and

BLBK019-Ward

102

June 2, 2008

21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

retail/foodservice interests. A steering committee of the stakeholder council meets quarterly (usually via a telephone conference given the international membership) and the full council meets annually. The TAB also advises the trustees and MSC executive. The TAB is made up of leading scientists and fisheries experts from around the world and assists the MSC executive on all issues affecting the maintenance of the quality and consistency of the MSC standard and its evolution in the face of scientific advances.

4.12 The MSC’s future It is critical to the prospects of success for the MSC that the programme continues to accelerate, to scale up the impact considerably so that it is not just a useful idea, but is generating significant market transformation. With growing support and recognition of the role that a credible consumer-driven programme like the MSC can play in transforming markets, there is a finite window of opportunity for the MSC to deliver its mission. The intention is to use this window to shift the MSC programme to the point where its impact will become irreversible. The goal is to increase the availability of sustainably caught seafood certified under the MSC programme, increase the share of the total consumption of wild-capture seafood accounted for by MSC-certified product, increase the proportion of the total volume of MSC-certified seafood that bears the MSC ecolabel and achieve a critical mass of supply for the key species consumed in the US, European, Japanese and other priority markets. To help achieve these goals, commercial outreach and fisheries outreach activity will be undertaken to encourage more fisheries to join the programme. Demonstration of the benefits of certification among a range of fisheries of different size, targeting different species, and operating in different types of location will help to prove the concept of the MSC programme and increasingly work as an encouragement to other fisheries to move forward into the assessment process. In November 2006, the MSC’s board decided that it would not be expanding the scope of the MSC’s wild-capture certification and ecolabelling programme to include aquaculture production systems. Instead, the MSC will continue to focus its resources and activities on its core mission of wild-capture fisheries, although the MSC can contribute to the sustainability of aquaculture through the certification of fisheries used as the source of aquaculture feeds. Seafood is an intensively traded commodity around the world (see Chapter 9), and there is considerable interdependence between various regional seafood markets. The MSC’s overarching objective for the next 3–5 years is to increase the presence and profile of the MSC programme in the US, European, Japanese and other key seafood producing and consuming regions around the world. By increasing the supply of certified seafood into these target markets, we hope to achieve enough

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme

103

critical mass to prove the MSC concept and help to move the MSC to the ‘tipping point’, beyond which it will be self-sustaining. The MSC’s strategic plan (MSC 2006a) contains a series of time-bound, quantified and measurable outputs that we will deliver in order to realise the desired outcomes and achieve our goals. Key benchmarks include securing commitments to the MSC programme from major retailers in target countries, achieving specific shares of total consumption of wild fish from MSC-certified sources, a defined increase in the amount of MSC-labelled product available in major stores, a communications programme for priority markets, and improvements in the efficiency of the operation of the assessment system. The take-up of the programme will depend on the actions of many potential partners. We fully recognise that the MSC is just one tool of many designed to promote sustainable seafood and marine conservation, and we look to working closely with partners from a broad community of interests to achieve our shared goals.

References Agnew, D., Grieve, C., Orr, P., Parkes, G. & Barker, N. (2006) Environmental benefits resulting from certification against MSC’s principles and criteria for sustainable fishing, 134 pp. Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK. Available at: http://www.msc.org/ assets/docs/Resources/MSC Environmental Benefits Report Phase1 FINAL 4May 2006.pdf [accessed on February 2008]. Bakalar, N. (2006) Fish oil linked to lower alzheimer’s risk. New York Times [internet] 14 November 2006. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/ health/14alzh.html?ex=1321160400&en=84d1e746f912f5d0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt &emc=rss [accessed on 17 April 2007]. BBC News Online (2004) Fish areas ‘need drastic action’ [online], British Broadcasting Corporation, London. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4072503.stm [accessed on 16 April 2007]. FAO (2005) Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries, 91 pp. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAO (2006) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Huntington, T., Frid, C., Banks, R., Scott, C. & Paramor, O. (2004) Assessment of the Sustainability of Industrial Fisheries Producing Fish Meal and Fish Oil. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Berkshire, UK. Kurlansky, M. (1999) Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World. Vintage; New Edition, Random House, London. Lantin, B. (2004) New guidelines on oily fish are no red herring, Daily Telegraph (UK) [internet], 6 July 2004. Available at: www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/ health/2004/07/06/hoily06.xml [accessed on 20 February 2008].

BLBK019-Ward

104

June 2, 2008

21:20

Seafood Ecolabelling

MSC (2002) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK. Available at: http://www.msc.org/html/content 504.htm [accessed on February 2008]. MSC (2006a) Integrated strategic plan. Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK. Available at: http://www.msc.org/assets/docs/Resources/Final ISP FEB07.pdf [accessed on 16 April 2007]. MSC (2006b) Whole foods market brings back Patagonian toothfish [online]. Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK. Available at: http://www.msc.org/html/ni 240.htm [accessed on 20 February 2008]. MSC (2006c) My MSC – Chain of Custody Handbook. Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK. MSC (2007) MSC invests in traceability for sustainable seafood [online]. Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK. Available at: http://www.msc.org/html/ni 272.htm [accessed on 19 April 2007]. M&S (2007) Plan A. Because there is no plan B [online]. Marks & Spencer PLC. London, UK. Available at: http://www.marksandspencer.com/gp/node/n/50890031/0267362192-7962025?ie=UTF8&mnSBrand=core [accessed on 16 April 2007]. May, B., Leadbitter, D., Sutton, M. & Weber, M. (2003) The marine stewardship council (MSC) background, rationale and challenges. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Eco-labelling in Fisheries What Is It All About? pp. 14–33. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Metro Group (2006) METRO group actively promotes sustainable fishery. [online]. Available at: http://www.metrogroup.de/servlet/PB/menu/1053980 l2/index.htm [accessed on 16 April 2007]. Oceanic D´evelopement, Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd and MegaPesca Lda (2005) The European tuna sector economic situation, prospects and analysis of the impact of the liberalisation of trade. Unpublished report. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/studies/tuna summary 2005 en.pdf [accessed on 17 April 2007]. Fliess, B., Leem, H.-J., Dubreuil, O.L. & Agatiello, O. (2006) CSR and trade: informing consumers about social and environmental conditions of globalised production. OECD Trade Policy Working Paper No. 47 Part II: Case Studies. OECD, Paris, France. Available at: http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2006doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00007682/$FILE/JT03220260. PDF [accessed on February 2008]. Pastoor, G. (2007) Submission from Association des Industries du Poissondel’U.E./E.U. Fish Processors Association, on Consultation Paper on the Initiatives envisaged by the Commission to Improve the Fight of the European Community against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/contributions150107/aipce cep.pdf [accessed on February 2008]. Phillips, B., Ward, T. & Chaffee, C. (2003) Eco-labelling in Fisheries What Is It All About? Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (1999) The World at Six Billion. United Nations, New York, USA. United Nations (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September 2002. A/CONF.199/20∗ , ISBN 921-104521-5. United Nations, New York, USA. Available at: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

21:20

The Marine Stewardship Council Programme

105

UNDOC/GEN/N02/636/93/PDF/N0263693.pdf?OpenElement [accessed on 16 April 2007]. Worm, B., Sandow, M., Oschlies, A., Lotze, H.K. & Myers, R.A. (2005) Global patterns of predator diversity in the open oceans. Science, 309, 1365–1369. Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, E., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J. & Watson, R. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ecosystem services. Science, 314, 787–790. WWF (2004a) Tuna farming in the Mediterranean: the bluefin tuna stock at stake, 35 pp. WWF Mediterranean Programme, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://assets.panda.org/ downloads/tunafarming2004.pdf [accessed on February 2008]. WWF (2004b) WWF briefing on ATRT’s “The Tuna-Ranching intelligence unit” report. 9pp. WWF Mediterranean Programme, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://assets.panda. org/downloads/wwftunabriefingonatrt.pdf [accessed on February 2008]. WWF Denmark (2006) A Sustainable Future for Baltic Sea Cod and Cod Fisheries. Unpublished report. WWF Denmark. Available at: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/ cod report.pdf [accessed on May 2007].

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Chapter 5

Aquaculture Certification Daniel Lee

5.1 Introduction Unlike price and other easily observable product characteristics, the environmental attributes of seafood products are often impossible for individual consumers to assess and they are left in the dark when it comes to making environmentally friendly choices (Wessells et al. 1999). Seafood certification and ecolabelling schemes aim to rectify this problem by providing reliable, independent information to shoppers and diners and to create a virtuous link between the environmentally aware consumer and the responsible producer (Wessells et al. 2001, Phillips et al. 2003, FAO/NACA 2007). However, it should be noted that the desire to achieve this worthy outcome is not the only driving force behind the development of certification schemes. Aquaculturists are becoming increasingly aware that it is in their own best interests to adopt sustainable practices to reduce problems with pollution and disease, and to gain recognition for their efforts. Above all, environmental pressure groups have mounted successful campaigns to draw attention to the negative environmental consequences of many aquaculture systems. Although the important messages from these groups have yet to influence all consumers, they have not been lost on the managers of major retail chains and key players in the food service sector. Many of these players are ready to take the lead and to push sustainability initiatives even in situations where the market ‘pull’ from consumers does not, on its own, provide enough impetus to create self-sustaining ecolabelling schemes. Unfortunately, this is necessary because, as Mathew (2004) puts it, there is as yet no clear signal from the market that the price for ecolabelled fish could more than offset the costs of certification. If ecolabelling schemes are to become established, they will also need to be supported by large-scale promotional campaigns, a consistent presence, visibility in the market and improvements in consumer education and awareness (Allen 2000, Bostock et al. 2004). Such schemes will also need to be designed to send clear signals to fish farmers about rising expectations for environmental performance, ethical standards and food safety. And ideally, given the importance of international trade in seafood products, certification should be based on internationally recognised standards that can be consistently applied across the world. 106

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

107

This chapter opens with a brief analysis of the sustainability concept and an account of the capacity for aquaculture systems to respond to environmental and economic pressures. The chapter then describes certification schemes and some of the international policy questions they raise, culminating in an account of the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) and its certification scheme.

5.2 Sustainable aquaculture Since the objective of certification schemes is to promote sustainable practices, it is worthwhile to consider what sustainable aquaculture, or more generally, sustainable development, actually implies and how it might be objectively assessed. The definition that is most commonly referred to is the one framed by the World Commission on Environment and Development: sustainable development meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). Although this definition leaves plenty of room for debate about the precise meaning of ‘needs’ it successfully captures the essence of concern for sustainability, that is, the basic observation that current trends in economic development and resource use cannot be sustained indefinitely. Alternative definitions have been provided by Conway (1985): sustainability is the ability of a system to maintain productivity in spite of a major disturbance. And, in the case of sustainable agriculture, by Keeny (1989): agricultural systems which are environmentally sound, profitable and productive and maintain the social fabric of the rural community. By substituting the words ‘aquaculture’ for ‘agriculture’ and ‘coastal’ for ‘rural’, this last definition can also be usefully applied to sustainable aquaculture – aquacultural systems that are environmentally sound, profitable and productive and maintain the social fabric of coastal communities. Cornelissen (2003) makes the important point that the rationales underlying sustainable development can be characterised as either anthropocentric or ecocentric. An anthropocentric rationale considers sustainability to be a societal construct and emphasises the acceptability of society as gauged by the quality of life that society provides, for example, employment. An ecocentric rationale disputes such a subjective basis and claims that sustainability refers objectively and exclusively to the maintenance of life-support systems, that is, to the society preserving biological and physico-chemical processes that maintain the conditions necessary for life on earth. Those adhering to an ecocentric rationale may be reluctant to also consider societal issues, as ecocentrism originates from the sense that anthropocentrism is at the very root of current concern for sustainability. In short, subjective elements are inherent in any definition of sustainability. Apart from the question of what is meant by sustainability, there is also the important question of how to measure it, such that different systems can be compared, temporal changes monitored and improved management practices identified.

BLBK019-Ward

108

May 26, 2008

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

Unfortunately sustainability is not a measurable entity in itself, so its analysis relies on indirect criteria or sustainability indicators. Ideally, sustainable development should be the result of fair negotiations among those who have a stake in the concern for sustainability. Consequently, because stakeholders play a pivotal role in sustainable development, a definition of sustainability based on a ‘consistent’ set of sustainability criteria may be unattainable, mainly because public concern will be subject to change. If sustainability criteria change, then the emphasis in sustainable development will change accordingly, severely limiting the possibility of quantitative ‘prediction’ of future sustainability. The fact that public concern is easily subject to change is illustrated by the Nitrofen affair in Germany (EC 2002). After traces of the forbidden herbicide Nitrofen were found in eggs and chickens originating from organic farms in Germany, consumer organisations issued warnings, organic farms were temporarily closed and the credibility of certified organic agriculture was seriously damaged. Considering the importance of the concept of sustainability for development strategies as well as its temporal dynamics, it seems more useful to continuously monitor sustainable development than to try and predict sustainability. Thus, although it may not be possible to come up with a precise definition of sustainability that satisfies all interested parties, attempts at monitoring sustainability through the use of a broad set of well-designed indicators are still valid and they can help to build a consensus among stakeholders. This realisation has driven initiatives to identify sustainability indicators for many systems including aquaculture in Scotland (SEERAD 2003) and aquaculture in Europe overall (CONSENSUS 2006). However, identifying suitable indicators is just the starting point and major obstacles, largely in the form of inconsistent and costly methods of data collection, remain. Herein lies one significant advantage of voluntary certification schemes. They typically require the collection of environmental impact data in a consistent format and, if they are well designed, these data can be compiled to generate informative environmental indicators – indicators that will be essential in the long-term quest for sustainable aquaculture practices.

5.3 Environmental pressure The emergence of numerous certification schemes aimed at addressing the negative impacts of aquaculture is more than a reflection of the magnitude of the problems in the aquaculture industry. The abundance of schemes (Tables 5.1 and 5.2) is also based on the fact that they can capitalise on the industry’s ability to react positively to environmental pressures and they thus hold out good prospects for reducing negative impressions of the aquaculture industry. Put simply, aquaculture can and does change for the better in response to environmental pressures (Asche et al. 1999). In this regard, as a means of producing seafood, it has some fundamental

Worldwide Worldwide Worldwide

Worldwide

Worldwide France, Scotland, Madagascar Bangladesh Scotland UK Chile Thailand Malaysia

Safe Quality Food Institute: SQF 1000; SQF 2000

Best Aquaculture Practices/Global Aquaculture Alliance/Aquaculture Certification Council

GLOBALGAP/Integrated Aquaculture Assurance Standard

Carrefour Filiere ` Quality

Label rouge

Shrimp seal of quality

Tartan quality mark

Freedom foods

SIGES/Fundacion ´ Chile/CBPA

Thai Quality Shrimp/Good Aquaculture Practices/Code of Conduct

Malaysian Aquaculture Farm Certification Scheme

Main geographic range

Aquaculture certification schemes (non-organic)

ISO 14001/Environmental Management System

Scheme

Table 5.1

Penaeid shrimp, Macrobrachium, fish, ornamentals, molluscs

Penaeid shrimp, Macrobrachium

Salmonids

Salmon

Salmon

Penaeid shrimp, Macrobrachium

Seabass, oysters, salmon, turbot, penaeid shrimp

Salmonids, penaeid shrimp, oysters

Salmonids, tilapia, Pangasius, penaeid shrimp

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Ecolabel for consumers?

www.fishdept.sabah.gov.my/aquaculture.asp

www.thaiqualityshrimp.com

www.siges-salmonchile.com

www.rspca.org.uk

www.scottishsalmon.co.uk

www.cdpbd.org/ssoq/ssoq brief.htm

www.label-rouge.org

www.carrefour.com www.carrefour.co.th

www.globalgap.org

www.gaalliance.org

www.responsibleseafood.org

www.aquaculturecertification.org

www.sqfi.com

www.iso.org

Website

May 26, 2008

Penaeid shrimp, channel catfish (tilapia and Pangasius to be added 2008; salmon and molluscs in 2009)

Any species

Any species

Aquaculture species covered

BLBK019-Ward 23:54

Aquaculture Certification 109

Aquaculture certification schemes (organic) Main geographic range Worldwide UK, EU Scotland, EU Australia Australia Germany New Zealand Switzerland Norway, Sweden

Scheme

Naturland

Organic Food Federation Soil Association Scotland Australian Certified Organic NASAA Bioland Bio-grow Bio-Suisse Debio/KRAV

Salmonids, arapaima, milkfish, mussels, penaeid shrimp, Cod (gadoids), salmonids Atlantic salmon, trout, shrimp Fish, crustaceans, molluscs Fish, crustaceans Freshwater fish Fish, molluscs, crustaceans Fish Salmonids, perches, gadoids

Aquaculture species covered

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Ecolabel for consumers?

www.orgfoodfed.com www.soilassociationscotland.org www.australianorganic.com.au www.nasaa.com.au www.bioland.de www.bio-gro.co.nz www.bio-suisse.ch www.debio.no www.krav.se

www.naturland.org

Website

110

May 26, 2008

Table 5.2

BLBK019-Ward 23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

111

advantages over capture fisheries. The global fishing industry has reacted slowly to environmental imperatives – chief among these being the near-destruction of some of the fish stocks that the industry depends on. This is because fishing typically takes place in open-access or poorly policed waters where individual players have an incentive to over-exploit a common resource with little regard to sustainability. In contrast, most aquaculture operates in a setting where stock ownership and farm sites are clearly defined. In economic terms this makes aquaculture a much more efficient activity than fishing because farm owners have an incentive to invest in the long-term viability of their operations, knowing that the benefits of good management will not be dissipated by outsiders. The Norwegian salmon industry provides some good examples of how aquaculture can respond to environmental pressures. Furthermore, and somewhat counterintuitively, the evidence from Norway supports the idea that industry growth actually has a positive relationship with environmental quality. Detrimental environmental effects of aquaculture that are not accounted for in market prices are by definition externalities, and it is the internalisation of these externalities that explains why some major environmental issues in aquaculture have been resolved. Data from the early 1980s to the early 2000s show that, as their industry has expanded, Norwegian salmon farmers have increased the degree of internalisation because of negative feedback effects from pollutants (Asche & Tveter˚as 2006). The development of more efficient feeds, largely attributable to feed makers, and the relocation of cages away from protected inshore areas to areas with more suitable hydrology, have cut pollution and associated disease problems. In 1980 it took almost 3 kg of feed to produce 1 kg of salmon but by 2000 this amount had fallen to just over 1 kg. Over the same period, the use of chemicals and antibiotics in the Norwegian salmon industry fell in absolute terms. Total antibiotic use peaked at nearly 50 tonnes in 1987 but, following the development of vaccines and the relocation of farms, disease problems declined and antibiotic use dropped to around 1–2 tonnes per year in the 2000s. These improvements came against a background of rising annual output. Not all parts of the world are as well regulated as Norway is, but the lessons there show that the greatest environmental improvements do not rely on regulation, but on the self-interested behaviour of individual operators and their suppliers in a broadly coordinated industry. Negative environmental feedback will, particularly in a large and expanding industry, prompt innovation and it should be the aim of voluntary certification schemes to encourage the spread of innovation and best management practices (BMPs) to accelerate positive change. Beyond BMP, where problems may not be efficiently internalised because of weak feedback effects, certification schemes provide a means to promote coordinated action and to reinforce existing legislation aimed at addressing these more recalcitrant externalities. In the salmon industry, problems associated with sea-lice and escaped salmon fall into this second category.

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

112

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

5.4 Economic pressure The rapid growth of the aquaculture industry has stimulated criticism in some circles, with influential analysts questioning the merits of farming high-priced, carnivorous species, such as shrimp and salmon. Naylor et al. (2000) reviewed the effects of aquaculture on world fish supplies and challenged the assumption that aquaculture adds to net fish supply, noting that some important farmed species consume fishmeal that is itself derived from the output of wild fisheries (see the discussion of the fishmeal issue below). They urged the aquaculture industry to adopt more ecologically sound management practices and called for coordinated action to reduce the negative external costs generated by farming systems. Key parts of this analysis are undoubtedly true and the aquaculture industry must redouble its efforts to drive down external costs and to increase net production of fish and shellfish. Nonetheless, aquaculture should not be judged only for its impact on world fish supplies – it needs to be viewed in terms of its overall economic impact on society and its local impacts and benefits for communities. Aquaculture’s opponents readily adopt the terminology of economic appraisal when they focus on negative external costs but they typically ignore the other side of the analysis – positive external benefits. These benefits are commonly significant and include:

r investment and wealth generation in some of the poorest parts of the world; r consumer benefits from improved supply and downward pressure on prices; and r reducing the pressure on, and the negative impacts of, some important wild fisheries (although this effect may be masked by increasing consumer demand for fishery products). International trade in farmed seafood provides good examples of the benefits of globalisation, with trade in products like frozen shrimp transferring wealth from consumers in rich nations to producers in poor nations. Tropical countries generally have a comparative advantage in the production of tropical aquaculture products, so it is in their economic interests to exploit this advantage. However, in poor countries the production of high-value export crops like shrimp rarely increases the local availability of seafood. But even in this kind of setting aquaculture is still beneficial because of its ability to raise incomes and reduce poverty. And history has clearly demonstrated that poverty reduction is the most reliable foundation for reducing hunger and building food security (Baghwati 2004, Wolf 2005). In addition, although it does not guarantee success, raising incomes contributes to the potential for strong environmental stewardship, with economic vitality being one of the determinants of a nation’s environmental performance (Esty et al. 2005). The power of aquaculture output to depress market prices, even against a backdrop of increased demand for seafood, is well illustrated by examples from Europe. Rapid saturation of the seabream (Sparus aurata) market in the 1990s led to a 50% fall in price in 5 years; and an increasing output of Atlantic salmon led to

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

113

a 50% drop in prices over a 10-year period (FAO 1997). Consumers benefit from falling prices as farmed products make inroads into luxury markets. In 1992 it was estimated that US shrimp prices would have been 70% higher had it not been for imports of farmed product (Keithly et al. 1992), and given the steady growth in shrimp aquaculture this price depression effect is sure to be even greater today. The potential for aquaculture to reduce pressure on wild fisheries is also illustrated by the situation in the US where low cost imports of farmed shrimp are challenging the economic viability of coastal shrimp fisheries, with fishermen lobbying for protectionist measures to keep their industry afloat. While scientific and technical progress drive competitiveness in the aquaculture industry, fishermen have to confront problems like rising fuel costs with limited hope of increasing their economic efficiency in weakly managed fisheries.

5.5 Aquaculture certification schemes Before a certification scheme can be launched, requirements need to be written down and codified. The resulting documents may take the form of general codes of good practice or more precise sets of quantifiable standards. There are many organisations that have taken on the task of creating these documents in respect of aquaculture. Some are producer or trade associations, or have close links to such associations, and they limit their attention to a particular species or to a species produced in a specific geographical area. This approach has produced a number of well-conceived, detailed standards tailored to the immediate and particular needs of producers and markets. However, the highly specific nature of many of these schemes limits their prospects for gaining widespread consumer recognition and for conveying wider, consistent messages about the sustainability of aquaculture practices globally. There are two broad types of aquaculture certification schemes, non-organic (Table 5.1) and organic (Table 5.2). The various schemes differ in the species they cover, their geographical range and the use of an ecolabel aimed at consumers. The schemes also differ greatly in the way they focus on one or more of five main issues – the environment, social concerns, food safety, traceability and animal welfare. They all cover environmental issues to some extent (except perhaps SQF 1000 and SQF 2000) but there are big variations with regard to coverage of social issues. Most organic standards and standards aimed at producers in developed countries have no social provisions at all. When it comes to auditing procedures, most non-organic schemes, if they are not state run, rely on the services of independent, third-party auditing companies because this adds to a scheme’s credibility. Within organic certification schemes, most standards are written to conform to the general principles of the organic movement as defined by international umbrella groups such as IFOAM (www.ifoam.org). Organic certification bodies usually take on the roles of setting precise standards and overseeing, more or less directly, the auditing process.

BLBK019-Ward

114

May 26, 2008

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

The ISO 14001 standard is a generic standard for environmental management systems that is not specifically aimed at aquaculture. It initially requires a comprehensive environmental risk assessment and then the development of an environmental management plan specific to each applicant. The SQF 1000 and SQF 2000 standards of the Safe Quality Food Institute are unlike the other schemes because they are primarily directed towards food safety and effective product traceability. The Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) programme of the GAA, for which the Aquaculture Certification Council (ACC) is the auditing body, aims for a comprehensive treatment of environmental, social, food safety and traceability issues. It includes standards that are specifically drafted to address the problems associated with each aquaculture species. This leads to a simpler, more targeted approach than the generic ISO approach because it does not require farmers to perform their own risk assessments. Instead, farmers are led through an analysis of the key risks by following the format of the standard and its guidelines. A more detailed account of the BAP programme and the workings of the GAA and the ACC is provided below. Another certification scheme that also aims at comprehensive treatment of all issues and worldwide coverage is the GLOBALGAP Integrated Aquaculture Assurance Standard (see Chapter 6). However, unlike the GAA, GLOBALGAP does not have an ecolabel for use at the consumer level and it does not specialise in aquaculture alone, but also produces standards for fruit, vegetables and livestock. GLOBALGAP aims to promote sustainable farming and aquaculture practices worldwide by providing a business-to-business service linking producers and retailers. Some large retail chains also have their own in-house ecolabelling schemes. The French multi-national Carrefour, for example, has its own Fili`ere Quality Line ecolabel that it applies to a selected range of its food products including farmed salmon, shrimp and oysters. Almost all supermarkets in the UK require, as a component part of traceability audits, investigation into environmental issues as well as guarantees of social/ethical conditions, but they may not have specific labels that advertise this fact. The Freedom Foods scheme, run by the UK’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, is unusual in that it aims to raise environmental and other standards primarily by focusing on issues that influence animal welfare. Freedom Foods has been extended from livestock and poultry to also cover farmed salmon. Another label available for salmon is the Tartan Quality Mark. Although presented more as an overall quality mark than as an ecolabel, fish that carry this label come from farms that have been independently audited and comply with the Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture, which has many clauses detailing best practices for environmental management. The Label Rouge quality mark can be found on a wide range of French farm products including farmed oysters, turbot and seabass, and also on some imported aquaculture products such as Scottish salmon and Madagascan shrimp. Some schemes are very country specific. For example, the Shrimp Seal of Quality (SSOQ) label has been developed for farmed shrimp and prawns in Bangladesh,

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

115

and in Thailand, the Thai Quality Shrimp label can be applied to the product that conforms to the Good Aquaculture Practices (GAPs) laid down by the Thai Department of Fisheries. As its name implies, the Malaysian Aquaculture Farm Certification Scheme is also country specific. In Chile, salmonids can be certified to the Code of Good Environmental Practices produced by Fundaci´on Chile and SIGES-Salmon Chile. Organic aquaculture certification has an advantage over non-organic certification largely because the organic label is well recognised by consumers and a growing number are willing to pay a premium price. Because of this, organic certification is already well developed for terrestrial farm produce. However, there has been much debate about how organic principles can or should be extended to apply to aquaculture, particularly for carnivorous species, and particularly in the US. The US Department of Agriculture has yet to officially approve any organic aquaculture standards, thereby blocking the use of the coveted ‘USDA Organic’ label. Tacon and Brister (2002) discuss the prospects of private and national organic certification schemes in more detail. All the schemes listed in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 are voluntary and have requirements that either exceed or strengthen existing legal obligations. However, some certification schemes are mandatory and are more akin to operating permits than ecolabels. For example, the certification provided by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is a requirement for all aquaculture operations within the state. It covers a wide variety of systems for producing penaeid shrimp, sturgeon, shellfish, live rock and aquatic plants, and is based on compliance with a series of site requirements and defined BMPs (www.FloridaAquaculture.com).

5.6 Unintended consequences Concerns about the unintended consequences of aquaculture certification schemes have been raised in many quarters, particularly with respect to the developing world. Bostock et al. (2004) has drawn parallels with problems that have arisen with certification initiatives for forestry products to illustrate how schemes devised largely in developed countries can pose problems in poorer regions. Thus, despite initiatives by the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC), very little certification has been successful in the natural forests of the developing world. Problems have been attributed to:

r non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from developing countries setting the FSC’s agenda;

r FSC certification favouring the management systems of developed countries; r the high costs of certification discouraging poor performers from applying; r the disproportionate benefits between producer and processor;

BLBK019-Ward

116

May 26, 2008

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

r the benefits of certification (premiums, enhanced credibility or market access) often not being passed down to the producer but shared disproportionately within the supply chain; r the lack of certifying bodies from developing countries; and r the certification challenges being too great for small operations in developing countries. These obstacles to the success of certification schemes among small-scale producers in developing countries should not be underestimated and they are already influencing the spread of certification in the shrimp industry. For example, the majority of farms that have entered the Global Aquaculture Alliance’s BAP programme are large ventures, often parts of vertically integrated business structures (www.aquaculturecertification.org). Small-scale farmers, particularly common in Asia, are constrained because of the associated costs and because of the requirements for improved record keeping and some management procedures. The solution is for small farmers to come together in clusters or co-operatives and seek certification in groups, thereby spreading the costs of certification among many participants and promoting communal responsibility for the environment (Boyd et al. 2006). Despite these concerns, and the natural reluctance of fish and shrimp farmers to warm to schemes that appear to be imposed by distant retailers and multi-national corporations, there is evidence that voluntary standards gradually bring tangible benefits. Iizuka (2006) analysed the impact of standards on the Chilean salmon industry, where she views them as a new platform of innovation and learning, concluding optimistically: ‘Although the process of compliance with standards begins with a one-way power relationship and associated flow of knowledge and information, such one-way flows may become consolidated into two-way interlinkages when power balances themselves reverse with the development of local capability in catching up countries. In such a context, standards increasingly act as an interface where diverse knowledge from horizontal and vertical relationships – local and global, tacit and codified and user and producer – intercept and converge, becoming a platform of interactions and learning for those involved.’ Significant public policy questions arise when third parties begin to certify private sector fish farming (Lee & Connelly 2006). These questions have already been raised with regard to the work of the Marine Stewardship Council, the leading independent body that sets standards for sustainability in wild fisheries. The issues that society should consider include these below: (a) Governments have traditionally been responsible for managing their nations’ natural resources. Part of the management responsibilities includes communicating to society the state of those resources and what plans are in place to address any user conflicts. When third parties become certifiers of private sector performance, do those third parties become the de facto communicators of the state of the resource? That is, if a certifier deems a fishery or fish farm to

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

117

be unsustainable, will the public begin to rely more on the non-governmental groups for information? (b) Governments, representatives of the people in many countries, have a responsibility to manage society’s public sector resources. Some standards systems, as a condition of certification, require government actions to be taken to remedy problems in certain areas. However, government is required to treat all demands on its resources evenhandedly and determine for the common good which challenges must be addressed first. Is government ceding its responsibilities to manage public sector resources when acceding to demands for corrective actions demanded by third-party certifiers? (c) The Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development encourages assistance for developing countries. Seafood certification systems, though, require a higher level of performance than is sometimes required by governments. By requiring more stringent standards for production, are developed countries creating non-tariff barriers to trade? Are the certification systems designed so that only developed countries have the infrastructure to support companies’ certification efforts? Or are developed countries shifting additional costs onto developing countries, at a time when they are trying to alleviate poverty in those countries? How can certification systems balance the consumer nations’ need for ensured sustainability with producer nations’ needs to develop an aquaculture industry without excess costs? (d) Conversely, by creating new trading categories of higher value (certified products) are developed countries simply downgrading the bulk of existing, uncertified products and holding their prices down? This could effectively create a two-tier system and result in trade distortions. Despite these important policy caveats, many international bodies such as the FAO recognise that BMPs play an important part in the sustainable development of aquaculture, for both large-scale and small-scale producers (FAO 2005). At the same time, third-party certification of these practices can help improve public confidence in the management of aquaculture facilities, provided that the certification systems function independently of the standard-setting organisations. Hopefully the rapidly expanding and evolving aquaculture industry, with the assistance of certification schemes, will continue to learn lessons from other industries and will increasingly follow the path towards environmental and social sustainability.

5.7 The alliance The Global Aquaculture Alliance, Inc. (GAA) is an international NGO with a mission to promote environmentally and socially responsible aquaculture to meet world food needs. The alliance was founded in 1997 with 59 founding members, widely scattered across the globe, including Europe and Asia, with a core of support in

BLBK019-Ward

118

May 26, 2008

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

the Americas. It has expanded steadily since its inception and now comprises 1100 members in 70 countries, including individuals, associations and companies. The GAA has become the most prominent industry organisation representing the global aquaculture business. Its success as a trade association has been built around its long-term view of the best interests of the aquaculture industry, in which issues affecting sustainability have been given priority over short-term financial considerations. The organisation has found an important niche for itself and taken on a variety of roles, acting as a unifying force for a large, diverse industry. The principal role is the promotion of its Responsible Aquaculture Program – a combination of general codes of conduct and specific aquaculture standards based on a synthesis of BMPs. The GAA also promotes debate inside and outside the industry, organises conferences, and publishes technical and scientific information. It provides a forum for addressing the main issues affecting the industry and it has been a vigorous advocate of free trade, upholding the interests of consumers and developing countries in trade disputes. Along with promoting responsible aquaculture, the GAA also advocates for the social and economic benefits of aquaculture through a balanced appraisal of available information. On the one hand this involves increasing awareness of the realities of aquaculture, and on the other hand it involves challenging critics when they make unsubstantiated claims or gross exaggerations. Scientific and technical knowledge are driving progress in the aquaculture industry, by improving the health and nutrition of farmed species, and by reducing stress, disease and the use of antibiotics. And new technologies, new breeds and newly domesticated species offer great hope for the future. This is an important message to deliver and the GAA makes use of three main vehicles: the bimonthly magazine Global Aquaculture Advocate; the website www.gaalliance.org; and the annual meeting – ‘Global Outlook for Aquaculture Leadership’ (GOAL). The Global Aquaculture Advocate initially focused on aspects of production but it has broadened its appeal by extending coverage up and down the supply chain and it is now styled as ‘the global magazine for farmed seafood’. Articles typically cover the following subject areas: free trade; marketing; seafood safety; value-added products; production; feeds and nutrition; seed stock; and health management. The GAA website is a convenient source of information on the structure and activities of the organisation; its principles, vision and function; membership; the Responsible Aquaculture Program; the GAA stance on a whole range of issues such as mangrove protection and fishmeal usage; and critical comment on press articles and anti-aquaculture campaigns by other groups. The annual meeting, GOAL, is designed to interest key players in the seafood industry, including retailers, major buyers, processors and producers. It provides a stage for presentations analysing global production and marketing trends, and presents an opportunity for industry members to interact and discuss strategies to overcome obstacles. The GAA uses these gatherings of influential people to raise the profile of its Responsible Aquaculture Program and to promote other parts of its mission.

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

119

Through the Responsible Aquaculture Program, GAA demonstrates the aquaculture industry’s commitment to environmental and social sustainability. Conservationists frequently argue that any ecological change brought about by the establishment of a new industry, or the intensification of an existing enterprise, is undesirable. Sociologists often fail to give adequate acknowledgment to the benefits gained by whole communities through improved communication networks, health care and employment opportunities. Failure to identify or objectively assess such matters during the planning and operational phases of projects can unduly stifle legitimate and worthwhile developments (Lee & Connelly 2006). Doubtless, both the environmental NGOs and GAA represent different factions in global society that seek the same end result – a socially equitable and environmentally benign aquaculture industry. Continuing dialogue that leads to objectively considered and fairly implemented actions will be essential if these aims are to be met (Wickins & Lee 2002).

5.8 The GAA principles The GAA’s Guiding Principles for Responsible Aquaculture were developed by reference to the aquaculture section of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995) and the Responsible Care Program of the Chemical Manufacturers Association (www.responsiblecare-us.com). The principles are designed to assist producers to raise aquaculture products in a socially and environmentally responsible manner, and provide that companies and individuals engaged in aquaculture, singularly and collectively:

r shall coordinate and collaborate with national, regional, and local governments

r

r r r r

in the development and implementation of policies, regulations, and procedures necessary and practicable to achieve environmental, economic, and social sustainability of aquaculture operations; shall utilise only those sites for aquaculture facilities whose characteristics are compatible with long-term sustainable operation with acceptable ecological effects, particularly avoiding unnecessary destruction of mangroves and other environmentally significant flora and fauna; shall design and operate aquaculture facilities in a manner that conserves water resources, including underground sources of fresh water; shall design and operate aquaculture facilities in a manner that minimises effects of effluent on surface and ground water quality and sustains ecological diversity; shall strive for continuing improvements in feed use and shall use therapeutic agents judiciously in accordance with appropriate regulations and only when needed based on common sense and best scientific judgment; shall take all reasonable measures necessary to avoid disease outbreak among culture species, between local farm sites, and across geographic areas;

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

120

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

r shall take all reasonable steps to ascertain that permissible introductions of exotic species are done in a responsible and acceptable manner and in accordance with appropriate regulations; r shall cooperate with others in the industry in research and technological and educational activities intended to improve the environmental compatibility of aquaculture; and r shall strive to benefit local economies and community life through diversification of the local economy, promotion of employment, contributions to the tax base and infrastructure, and respect for artisanal fisheries, forestry, and agriculture. These guiding principles are the foundation for the GAA’s codes of conduct and aquaculture standards (see below). They demonstrate the GAA’s intention to work closely with the aquaculture industry to promote responsible practices and to respect both the environment and the interests of stakeholders.

5.9 The GAA vision The GAA Vision Statement is: The GAA will strive to:

r r r r

develop and encourage the use of aquaculture system designs, installations and operations sensitive to and compatible with environmental and community needs; improve production and marketing efficiencies to provide aquaculture products to larger segments of the world’s population; promote effective and coordinated government regulatory and international trade policies; and articulate the importance of aquaculture as a source of food and employment and its compatibility with community needs and environmental protection.

GAA defines its functions according to the following guiding statements: The GAA shall:

r r r r r

Be a source of information about the aquaculture industry to consumers, government agencies and the media; Be an advocate for the industry in international forums; Assist its members in advocacy to national governments; Organise and support technological research; Provide technical and other information.

The GAA may:

r r r

Develop standards of good practice or codes of conduct for the aquaculture industry; Monitor and certify adherence to standards or codes; Develop and authorise use of marks or logos designating adherence to codes or standards.

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

121

5.10 Codes of practice The GAA has addressed some of the issues specific to shrimp farming through the booklet ‘Codes of Practice for Responsible Shrimp Farming’ (Boyd 1999). The codes consist of two parts: a Review of Sustainable Shrimp Farming and a section covering ten individual codes. The review assesses the status of shrimp production technology with special regard to sustainability and efficiency and provides a broad overview of the industry and its relationship to the environment. The ten individual codes address important issues related to aquaculture sustainability (Box 5.1). The individual codes are detailed, but are designed as flexible guidelines for the formulation of site-specific systems by responsible operators, and they enable implementation details to vary based on individual farm methods, goals and local conditions. They are therefore a valuable, flexible synthesis of existing BMPs, and are open to revision as technology advances. The GAA’s code of practice was developed 7 years before an important document of very similar scope and intent prepared by a large international consortium (FAO/NACA/UNEP/WB/WWF 2006).

Box 5.1

Outline of the BAP Shrimp Farm Standards

Community 1. Property rights and regulatory compliance Farms shall comply with local and national laws and environmental regulations, and provide current documentation that demonstrates legal rights for land use, water use, construction and operation. 2. Community relations Farms shall not deny local communities access to public mangrove areas, fishing grounds or other public resources. 3. Worker safety and employee relations Farms shall comply with local and national labour laws to assure adequate worker safety, compensation and living conditions at the facility. Environment 4. Mangrove conservation and biodiversity protection Shrimp farms shall not be located in mangrove areas, seagrass beds or other coastal wetlands. Farm operations shall not damage wetlands or reduce the biodiversity of coastal ecosystems. Mangroves removed for allowable purposes shall be replaced by replanting an area three times as large.

BLBK019-Ward

122

May 26, 2008

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

5. Effluent management Farms shall monitor effluents at the specified frequency to confirm that water quality complies with BAP criteria.∗ Water-quality measurements taken during certification inspection shall meet both BAP criteria and those of applicable government permits. Farms shall comply with BAP’s final criteria within 5 years. Variable (units – frequency) ph (standard units – M) Total suspended solids (mg/L – Q) Soluble phosphorus (mg/L – M) Total ammonia nitrogen (mg/L – M) 5-day bio-oxygen demand (mg/L – Q) Dissolved oxygen (mg/L – M) Salinity: Water with less than 1 ppt salinity, specific conductance below 1500 μmhos/cm or chloride less than 550 mg/L is considered fresh

Initial value 6.0–9.5 100 or less 0.5 or less 5 or less 50 or less 4 or more No discharge above 800 mg/L chloride into freshwater

Final value 6.0–9.0 50 or less 0.3 or less 3 or less 30 or less 5 or more No discharge above 550 mg/L chloride into freshwater

M, monthly; Q, quarterly.

∗

Limited option: The source water for aquaculture farms can have higher concentrations of water-quality variables than allowed by the initial criteria. In these cases, demonstration that the variable concentrations do not increase (or decrease for dissolved oxygen) between the source water and farm effluent is an acceptable alternative to compliance with the criteria. This option does not apply to chloride. After the first year of effluent monitoring, ACC will use data provided by facilities’ application forms to calculate an annual water-use index and annual load indices for total suspended solids, soluble phosphorus, total ammonia nitrogen and 5-day biochemical oxygen demand. 6. Sediment management Farms shall contain sediment from ponds, canals and settling basins and not cause salinisation or other ecological nuisance in surrounding land and water. 7. Soil/water conservation Farm construction and operations shall not cause soil and water salinisation or depletion of ground water in surrounding areas. 8. Post-larvae sources Certified farms shall not use wild post-larvae and shall comply with governmental regulations regarding the importation of native and non-native shrimp seedstock.

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

123

9. Storage and disposal of farm supplies Fuel, lubricants and agricultural chemicals shall be stored and disposed of in a safe and responsible manner. Paper and plastic refuse shall be disposed of in a sanitary and responsible way. Food safety 10. Drug and chemical management Banned antibiotics, drugs and other chemical compounds shall not be used. Other therapeutic agents shall be used as directed on product labels for control of diagnosed diseases or required pond management, and not for prophylactic purposes. Shrimp shall be periodically monitored for residues of suspect pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals that are confirmed in the vicinity. 11. Microbial sanitation Human waste and untreated animal manure shall be excluded from shrimp growout ponds. Domestic sewage shall be treated and not contaminate surrounding areas. 12. Harvest and transport Shrimp shall be harvested and transported in a manner that maintains temperature control and minimizes physical damage and contamination. Shrimp treated with sulphites or other allergens shall be labelled accordingly. Traceability Record-keeping requirement To establish product traceability, the following information shall be recorded for each pond and each production cycle:

r r r r r r

pond identification number pond area stocking date post-larvae quantity stocked post-larvae source (hatchery) antibiotic and drug use

r herbicide, algicide, other pesticide use r manufacturer and lot number for each r r r r

feed used harvest date harvest quantity sulphite use and protocol processing plant or purchaser.

5.11 Standards Moving a step beyond codes of practice, but maintaining the initial focus on shrimp farming, the GAA has defined more precise standards within its BAP programme.

BLBK019-Ward

124

May 26, 2008

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

Figure 5.1

The best aquaculture practices certification mark.

The resulting standards cover the same ground as the codes but define the most important elements of responsible practices by means of quantitative standards. They also specify auditing procedures by which adherence to these practices can be objectively assessed. Along with developing these standards, GAA has registered a BAP certification mark (Figure 5.1) for use in advertising and on product at the wholesale and retail levels. Aquaculture facilities that meet the requirements of the auditing process are deemed to be in compliance with the BAP standards and can make use of the BAP logo. The BAP standards (Box 5.1) are grouped under four headings: Community, Environment, Food Safety and Traceability (see www.gaalliance.org/bap.html). The full, detailed standards, accompanied by guidance notes and auditing forms, are freely available from Aquaculture Certification Council, Inc., the agency that has been assigned exclusive use of the BAP standards for certification purposes (see below). The detailed standards are designed for people who wish to enter the BAP programme and they are the same documents that are used by independent certifiers that visit aquaculture facilities to make inspections. Currently, there are BAP standards for shrimp farms, hatcheries and processing plants. The corresponding documents for feed mills and laboratory verification of food safety in finished products are being finalised. Participating feed mills will be required to demonstrate that they have adopted adequate procedures for manufacturing feeds free from biological and chemical hazards. Feed mills will also be encouraged to provide information on the fishmeal and fish oil content of their feeds, so that farmers can make increasingly efficient use of these limited natural resources. To meet demand for finfish standards, the GAA is expanding the BAP programme to include tilapia, salmon, shark catfish (Pangasius spp.) and channel catfish. The new fish standards address additional issues such as waste from cage sites, fishmeal usage and animal welfare. The larger, often vertically integrated, aquaculture operators have been financially and technically most able to modify their practices to meet the BAP standards. To address the needs of the myriad of small-scale farmers with more limited financial and technical resources, GAA is developing special provisions so that multiple small farms can certify in ‘clusters’. Cluster certification encourages small enterprises to form associations with their neighbours and to meet the BAP criteria collectively,

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

125

sharing responsibility for raising environmental and ethical performance levels and spreading the financial burden of certification. The success of cluster certification is vital to the BAP programme’s success, particularly in Asia (Boyd et al. 2006). Development of the BAP shrimp farm standards involved a lengthy period of consultation with industry experts, academics and representatives from a range of NGOs including the World Wildlife Fund. An initial draft was designed to be very comprehensive but was deemed unnecessarily complex and was simplified to provide a greater focus on the most pressing concerns. The resulting BAP standards are designed as far as possible to be SMART – specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-related, in line with best practice in standard development in other industries. They are written in plain language to limit subjective interpretation and to improve transparency and credibility. The auditing system incorporates a scoring process that is also designed to promote objectivity. Points are awarded according to the level of compliance with individual criteria and are summed to make a total that must exceed a minimum level if a facility is to achieve BAP certification. But very importantly, certain critical items, for example those dealing with mangroves, effluents, antibiotics and hatchery seed, are mandatory and failure to satisfy any one of them results in automatic failure, irrespective of the total number of points scored. The BAP shrimp farm standards address the major environmental and social concerns generated by shrimp farming and so they have the potential to greatly improve the environmental and social acceptability of aquaculture. For example, among other things, the BAP shrimp farm standards specify:

r r r r r r r r r

no net loss of mangroves; no use of wild post-larvae; traditional access by local inhabitants must not be restricted; effluent discharges must meet specific water-quality standards; groundwater must not be contaminated; accurate records must be kept for chemical storage, use and disposal; banned antibiotics must not be used; therapeutic agents must not be used prophylactically; and dredged sediments must be contained.

Certain requirements of the BAP programme serve to reinforce the application of existing environmental and social legislation that, in some developing countries, may not be enforced consistently. Other requirements go far beyond legal obligations, so the BAP programme cannot be characterised as a minimalist approach. Unlike some organic standards, such as those drafted by Naturland of Germany and the Soil Association of the UK, the BAP standards do not place restrictions on stocking densities. GAA takes the view that such restrictions are arbitrary and more intensive operations should not be excluded from ecolabelling schemes if they can satisfy compliance criteria. Indeed, it is often the more intensive farms that make technological advances in the efficient use of water, feed and seed. Also, given

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

126

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

their greater yield per unit area, they make more efficient use of land, and there is evidence that high-yield farming in developing countries is more compatible with wildlife preservation than more extensive farming methods (Green et al. 2005). While it is worthwhile for operators to enter the BAP programme for its own sake, there is an obvious need for certification by a credible third-party agency to independently confirm the conditions and actions under which aquaculture products are made and processed. The BAP programme, and specifically the BAP logo, can only gain credibility when compliance is verified objectively. Indeed, to harness commercial forces effectively the BAP logo must be built into an easily recognised ecolabel and seal of quality, so that producers and traders can gain a market advantage. For most of them, interest in the BAP programme is driven by the desire to gain recognition for supporting or applying responsible aquaculture practices. In many other industries, such as chemicals and timber, representative trade bodies also define environmental and ethical standards, but the job of objectively assessing compliance with these standards is assigned to third parties. Following this established pattern, GAA identified the need for a new body with a series of critical characteristics:

r r r r

independence from GAA, the standard-setting body; independence from the parties seeking certification; possession of expertise in this relatively new industry; and the ability to function with a low cost base to broaden the appeal of the BAP programme.

5.12 The Aquaculture Certification Council, Inc. Having recognised the need for independent third-party certification, GAA has been instrumental in the formation of ACC and has assigned it the exclusive rights to certify compliance with the BAP standards. Of most importance, ACC is separately constituted and operates independently from GAA. This separation between the GAA standard-setting process and a certification body ensures the system is consistent with the FAO Guidelines for Eco-Labelling of Marine Products (FAO 2005). In 1999, GAA established a Certification Committee to consider various certification mechanisms. GAA discussed a variety of ideas with consultants and examined a range of models including FSC, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, SGS (Soci´et´e G´en´erale de Surveillance), ISO 14001, SQF (Safe Quality Food Institute), Marine Stewardship Council, World Wildlife Fund, and some organic certification concepts. None of these options was considered to be appropriate and GAA developed a hybrid approach, combining desirable attributes from available models with moderate costs. As a result, GAA established the Aquaculture Certification Council in 2003. It was incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation with the mission to ‘certify

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

127

aquaculture facilities that apply BMPs to ensure social and environmental responsibility, food safety, and traceability throughout the production chain’. In addition to certifying aquaculture facilities, the ACC trains and accredits certifiers; maintains a website; commissions software for a traceability database; and interacts with stakeholders. The ACC runs 5-day intensive training courses at various sites in Asia and the Americas that include mock audits at aquaculture operations. There are now more than 100 ACC-accredited certifiers. Candidate certifiers must have at least 5 years of aquaculture-related experience in either the public or private sectors and be educated at least to degree level. An aquaculture facility that wishes to be accredited informs ACC and a certifier (all of whom are listed on the ACC website) is assigned to perform the inspection. The certifier negotiates a contract, specifying the timing of the inspection and the fees. Once the certifier has completed the inspection and has been paid, a report is submitted by the certifier to ACC that recommends accreditation or not. If the certifier identifies any deficiencies that need to be addressed, the report will detail them and ACC may require further inspection before granting accreditation. To maintain consistency across the programme, operations are subject to repeat inspections and the ACC also performs surprise audits. ACC certifiers are required to undergo regular refresher training and to pass online exams to maintain familiarity with the evolving BAP standards. The ACC is governed by a 12 member board of directors, from a cross-section of professionals from the Americas, Asia and Europe, and representing seafood producers, processors and buyers, academic institutions and other entities. Directors and officers serve 2-year terms, with half the board eligible for renewal each year. The permanent ACC staff consists of an Executive Director and support staff. The ACC generates revenues through licensing fees from the use of the BAP logo, certification fees, and certifier training fees. It also received financial assistance from 11 founding supporters, all of whom are active in the seafood trade. One important aspect of the ACC’s work is its management of the traceability component of the BAP programme. Traceability systems provide for accurate and timely identification of products, their origins, contents and location in the supply chain. They facilitate efficient recalls in the event of food safety problems and, for each participant in the chain, they create the ability to establish linkages at least one step up and one step down the supply chain. There is a well-established trend in the food industry towards improved traceability but the seafood industry has generally been lagging behind. The BAP programme can be seen as one of the seafood industry’s steps to catch up. This is important because traceability is now mandatory in the EU and may become a requirement in the US market as well. Regulating authorities interested in food safety require better data on the origins and nature of products, and improved traceability has great potential as a mechanism to expedite imports. Also, consumers are demanding more details on the products they consume, and traceability is crucial if suppliers are to deliver this information accurately.

BLBK019-Ward

128

May 26, 2008

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

To properly understand how the BAP programme functions, it is also important to be aware of the distinction between product and process certification. This is because, in a BAP certified facility, it is the processes that are certified rather than the product. Thus technically it is incorrect to refer to ‘BAP-certified product’ – the correct designation being ‘product from a BAP-certified source’. This distinction is a reflection of the food industry’s welcome move away from repetitive lot testing and the move towards quality assurance and the adoption of the management tool known as HACCP (hazard analysis, critical control points). The latter approach is a more efficient use of resources and it recognises that it is unfeasible and prohibitively expensive to screen every lot of product for hazards such as harmful bacteria and antibiotic residues. Up to October 2006, the ACC had certified 50 processing plants, 26 farms and 17 hatcheries, and the programme is successfully attracting new participants. Importantly, the BAP have been certified at facilities in three continents. Countries with certified facilities include Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, Dutch Antilles, Ecuador, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mexico, Nicaragua, Thailand, United States, Venezuela and Vietnam.

5.13 GAA perspectives The GAA attempts to present industry viewpoints on a series of key issues. Summaries for four such issues are provided below concerning mangroves, fishmeal and fish oil, antibiotic residues and trade. Thorough analysis of such topics is the best basis for developing successful policies to resolve remaining problems.

5.13.1 Mangroves In some circles shrimp farm construction is considered to be synonymous with mangrove destruction, but a closer look at industry practice and current trends indicates that aquaculture has a relatively small and declining impact on mangroves. Mangroves are vitally important coastal ecosystems that need to be conserved, but to do this effectively requires some understanding of the multiple forces that are threatening them. Up to 60% of the world’s historic mangrove resource has been lost due to population pressures and clearing for agriculture, urban development, salt production, logging and fuel. Even if all shrimp ponds (1.37 m ha in 1996) were built on mangroves this would still represent less than 5% of the total historic resource. Respected conservationists concur with this analysis, noting that the extent of mangrove destruction worldwide resulting from shrimp farming is only a tiny fraction of the loss to date (Clay 1996). Traditional aquaculture in places like Indonesia and the Philippines has relied on intertidal mangrove areas to produce extensive crops of fish and crustaceans. The rapid expansion of shrimp farming in the 1980s resulted in further mangrove

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

129

damage but it turned out that using poorly drained, acidic mangrove soils to build shrimp ponds resulted in poor productivity and many ponds were simply abandoned. Shrimp farmers have learned that the best sites for shrimp ponds are inland from the intertidal mangrove fringe. As a result most of the larger intensive and semi-intensive, so-called ‘industrial’ shrimp farms, do not displace mangroves. In addition, legislation to protect mangroves is now enforced more effectively and the rate of mangrove loss is slowing (Wilkie & Fortuna 2003). Aquaculture codes of conduct produced by the FAO and GAA are unequivocal about the need to protect mangroves. In 1997 GAA commissioned an international study by leading mangrove experts. This culminated in six recommended management practices, which form the first element of GAA’s Codes of Practice for Responsible Shrimp Farming. Some poor communities in remote parts of countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam still cut down mangroves to build shrimp ponds, so continued efforts at education and enforcement are needed. The aquaculture industry needs assistance from governments in tropical and sub-tropical developing countries to improve enforcement of mangrove conservation policies and to develop balanced strategies for integrated use of coastal areas.

5.13.2 Fishmeal Aquaculture, particularly of carnivorous species, is becoming the dominant consumer of world supplies of fishmeal and fish oil, and this has prompted some analysts (Naylor et al. 2000) to question its sustainability on the basis that supplies of fishmeal and fish oil are limited by the productivity of industrial ‘feed’ fisheries. This is an important issue to consider because these resources need to be managed wisely, but there is no evidence to suggest that the aquaculture industry cannot continue to expand by making use of the fishmeal that would otherwise go into the feed of terrestrial animals and by steadily improving the efficiency with which feeds are converted into flesh. Terrestrial animals can grow well with little or no fishmeal in their diets, but many aquaculture species only do well on diets that contain significant amounts of marine protein and lipids, which are most conveniently supplied by fishmeal and oil. So it makes sense to divert fishmeal and fish oil to aquaculture, the industry that values them most highly, leaving terrestrial animals to rely more heavily on plant proteins. Fishmeal and fish oil are mostly derived from species of pelagic fish that are highly fecund, fast-growing and relatively low in food chains. They are typically small, oily and boney and are not in high demand for direct human consumption, despite their excellent nutritional characteristics. The annual output from feed fisheries has been stable for decades averaging 21.5 million tonnes, with some stocks showing sensitivity to fluctuations in ocean currents and weather patterns, such as El Ni˜no, rather than to fishing pressure (Huntington et al. 2004). Nonetheless, there is clearly a need for stocks of feed fish to be carefully monitored and fishing activity to be regulated to help keep stocks at healthy levels for sustainable fisheries and

BLBK019-Ward

130

May 26, 2008

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

ecosystems. As to whether stocks of feed fish are being managed sustainably, there is, as yet, no definitive answer. FAO classifies most of them as ‘fully fished’ rather than overfished and this does imply sustainability. In an analysis of two important species, the Peruvian anchovy and the European sandeel, Huntington et al. (2004) could not determine whether the fisheries were being exploited sustainably or not. Their conclusion reflected a lack of knowledge about natural processes but there were no worrying trends in catch statistics to suggest that fishing pressure was damaging stocks.

5.13.3 Antibiotic residues Although most countries have banned chloramphenicol and nitrofuran antibiotics from animal food production due to their toxicity to humans, traces of the drugs have been detected in shrimp and other aquaculture products (Somjetlerdcharoen 2002). Chloramphenicol can cause potentially fatal aplastic anaemia and leukaemia, and nitrofurans are carcinogenic (IARC 1974, 1997). Therefore, GAA fully supports regulations that control the drugs to assure wholesome foods for consumers. At issue in the current debate on antibiotic residues is the distinction between detection and toxicity. Advancing analytical technology is allowing detection of substances at ever-diminishing levels. For example, heavy metals, pesticides and carcinogens can be highly toxic, yet are found in virtually all wholesome foods at trace levels. Studies have shown that low levels are likely to be innocuous. With increasing analytical capability, it is unrealistic to expect foods to be always free of any detectable level of hazardous substances. Meanwhile, the use of antibiotics in aquaculture, already minimal, is steadily declining as farmers come to recognise that these chemicals are expensive and only offer very short-lived or non-existent benefits to a crop (Asche & Tveter˚as 2006). Improvements in technology, husbandry practice, nutrition, water-quality management and general health management procedures are making antibiotic therapy increasingly redundant. And domestication and the development of new breeds of fish and shellfish are enabling selection for strains with characteristics including innate disease resistance, so reducing the need for the use of antibiotics.

5.13.4 Trade issues The rapid growth in aquaculture production and increasing international trade in seafood are bringing important changes to established markets for fish and shellfish. Some fisheries and aquaculture industries in rich countries are coming under pressure from cheaper producers in developing nations. As a result they are increasingly calling for protectionist measures to shield themselves from the effects of globalisation. The EU applies tariffs to most seafood imports and the Department of Commerce in the US is applying anti-dumping duties on Chinese supplies of farmed freshwater crayfish and Vietnamese supplies of farmed catfish, and it is now

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

131

targeting shrimp imports from the biggest suppliers in Asia and South America. The GAA opposes these anti-competitive measures that harm consumers and producers alike and delay the process of restructuring and reorganisation in the protected industries. GAA has made depositions to the International Trade Commission in support of the continued import of farmed shrimp that is benefiting consumers with more consistent supplies of high-quality product than would otherwise be available from domestic sources alone. The economic efficiencies inherent in aquaculture enable very competitive pricing and this is being unfairly presented in some quarters as ‘dumping’ of product.

5.14 Conclusions The aquaculture industry is demonstrating its commitment to environmental and social sustainability through certification schemes like the GAA’s Best Aquaculture Practices programme. Some argue that any ecological change brought about by the establishment of a new industry, or the intensification of an existing enterprise, is undesirable. However, it is important to recognise and give adequate acknowledgement to the benefits gained by whole communities through improved communication networks, health care and employment opportunities. Failure to identify or objectively assess such benefits can unduly stifle legitimate and worthwhile developments. Continuing dialogue that leads to objectively considered and fairly implemented actions will be essential if a socially equitable and environmentally benign aquaculture industry is to be developed to benefit global society.

References Allen, R. (2000) Eco-labelling: legal, decent honest and truthful? Green Chemistry, Royal Society of Chemistry, 2, 19–21. Asche, F., Guttormsen, A.G. & Tveter˚as, R. (1999) Environmental problems, productivity and innovations in the Norwegian Salmon Aquaculture. Aquaculture Economics and Management, 3(1), 19–29. Asche, F. & Tveter˚as, S. (2006) Review of environmental issues in fish farming: empirical evidence from salmon farming. In: The Economics of Aquaculture with respect to Fisheries. Proceedings of the 95th EAAE Seminar, Civitavecchia (Rome), Italy, 9–11 December 2005. Vitterbo, Italy. Available at: www.unitus.it/EAAE 2nd call/ papers/4 Asche Tveteras.pdf [accessed on 21 February 2008]. Baghwati, J. (2004) In Defence of Globalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Bostock, T., Greenhalgh, P. & Kleih, U. (2004) Policy Research – Implications of Liberalization of Fish Trade for Developing Countries: Synthesis Report. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK. Available at: www.onefish.org/id/225570 [accessed on 21 February 2008].

BLBK019-Ward

132

May 26, 2008

23:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

Boyd, C.E. (1999) Codes of Practice for Responsible Shrimp Farming. Global Aquaculture Alliance, St. Louis, MO. Available at: www.gaalliance.org/code.html [accessed on 21 February 2008]. Boyd, C.E., Limsuwan, C. & Fegan, D. (2006) Working group recommends certification revisions for shrimp farm clusters. Global Aquaculture Advocate, 9(4), 3–5. Clay, J.W. (1996) Market Potentials for Redressing the Environmental Impact of Wild Captured and Pond Produced Shrimp. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC. CONSENSUS (2006) Defining Indicators for Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe. A multi-stakeholder workshop held in Ostende, Belgium, 21–23 November 2005. CONSENSUS, European Aquaculture Society, 118 pp. Available at: www.euraquaculture. info/files/CONSENSUS Workshop.pdf [accessed on 21 February 2008]. Conway, G.R. (1985) Agroecosystem analysis. Agricultural Administration, 20, 31–35. Cornelissen, A.M.G. (2003) The Two Faces of Sustainability. Fuzzy Evaluation of Sustainable Development. PhD Thesis. Wageningen University, the Netherlands, 183 pp. EC (2002) Final report of a mission carried out in Germany from 19 to 23 August 2002 in order to evaluate the relevant control systems in place, in the light of the recent findings of Nitrofen in food and feeding stuffs, 22 pp. European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General. DG(SANCO)/8686/2002 – MR final, Brussels. Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T. & de Sherbinin, A. (2005) 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven, CT. FAO (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, 41 pp. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. FAO (1997) Review of the state of world aquaculture, 163 pp. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 886, Rev. 1. FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO (2005) Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries, 90 pp. FAO, Rome, Italy. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/ fao/008/a0116t/a0116t00.pdf [accessed on 21 February 2008]. FAO/NACA (2007) Aquaculture Certification: A Programme for Implementing the Recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries Sub-Committee on Aquaculture, 18 pp. FAO/NACA, Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA), Bangkok, Thailand. Available at: www.enaca.org/modules/wfdownloads/singlefile.php?cid = 84&lid = 787 [accessed on 21 February 2008]. FAO/NACA/UNEP/WB/WWF (2006) International Principles for Responsible Shrimp Farming, 20 pp. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA), Bangkok, Thailand. Green, R.E., Cornell, S.J., Scharlemann, J.P.W. & Balmford, A. (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science, 307, 550–555. Huntington, T., Frid, C., Banks, R., Scott, C. & Paramor, O. (2004) Assessment of the sustainability of industrial fisheries producing fishmeal and fish oil, 106 pp. Report to RSPB. Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd, Lymington, UK. IARC (1974) Some anti-thyroid and related substances, nitrofurans and industrial chemicals – summary of data reported and evaluation. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 7. IARC (1997) Pharmaceutical drugs – summary of data reported and evaluation. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 50, 169.

BLBK019-Ward

May 26, 2008

23:54

Aquaculture Certification

133

Iizuka, M. (2006) Standards as a new platform of innovation and learning in the global economy: a case study of a natural resource in a catching-up country, 24 pp.Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK. Available at: www.sussex. ac.uk/Units/spru/events/ocs/viewpaper.php?id = 198 [accessed on 21 February 2008]. Keeny, D.R. (1989) Toward a sustainable agriculture: need for clarification of concepts and terminology. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 4, 101–105. Keithly, W.R. Jr., Roberts, K.J. & Ward, J.M. (1992) Effects of shrimp aquaculture on the US market: an econometric analysis. In: U. Hatch & H. Kinnucan (Eds) Aquaculture Models and Economics, pp. 125–156. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Lee, D. & Connelly, J. (2006) Global aquaculture alliance on best aquaculture practices: an industry prepares for sustainable growth. Sustainable Development Law and Policy, VII(1), 60–62. Mathew, S. (2004) Sustainable development and social well-being: which approach to the fish trade? Bridges Monthly Review, 8(4), 11–14. Naylor, R.L., Goldburg, R.J., Primavera, J.H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M., Clay, J., Folke, C., Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H. and Troell, Ml. (2000) Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature, 405, 1017–1024. Phillips, B., Ward, T. & Chaffee, C. (2003) Eco-Labelling in Fisheries. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. SEERAD (2003) A Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture, 70 pp. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. Available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47034/0014768.pdf [accessed on 21 February 2008]. Somjetlerdcharoen, A. (2002) Chloramphenicol concerns in shrimp culture. Aquaculture Asia, 7, 51–55. Tacon, A.G.J. & Brister, D.J. (2002) Organic aquaculture, current status and future prospects. In: N. El-H. Scialabba & C. Hattam (Eds) Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security. Environment and Natural Resources Series 4, FAO, Rome, Italy. Available at: www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4137E/y4137e06.htm [accessed on 21 February 2008]. WCED (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. Wessells, C.R, Cochrane, K., Deere, C., Wallis, P. & Willman, R. (2001) Product certification and eco-labelling for fisheries sustainability, 83 pp. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 422, FAO Rome, Italy. Wessells, C.R., Johnston, R.J. & Holger, D. (1999) Assessing consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: the influence of species, certifier and household attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, 1084–1089. Wickins, J.F. & Lee, D.O’C. (2002) Crustacean Farming, Ranching and Culture. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Wilkie, M.L. & Fortuna, S. (2003) Status and trends in mangrove area extent worldwide. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper - 63. FAO, Rome, Italy. Wolf, M. (2005) Why Globalization Works. Yale Nota Bene, Yale, CT.

BLBK019-Ward

July 14, 2008

19:4

Chapter 6

GLOBALGAP – Building Consumer Confidence in Aquaculture Sustainability Aldin Hilbrands

6.1 Background Salmon aquaculture first began in the nineteenth century in the UK as a stock enhancement programme for wild pre-smolt fish (FAO 2004, Tlusty et al. 2007). In the 1960s, the first seacage (or net pen) was used in Norway to raise market-size Atlantic salmon (FAO 2004). The success of this operation led to the growth of the industry in Norway, followed by Scotland, Ireland (1980s), Faeroe Islands, Canada (both British Columbia and New Brunswick, 1970s), Washington and Maine, USA, Chile (1980s) as well as Australia, New Zealand, France and to a lesser degree, Spain (FAO 2004) (Table 6.1). In 2004, farmed Atlantic salmon constituted 90% of the farmed salmon market, and >50% of the total global salmon market (FAO 2004). Global production has increased dramatically since the 1980s, reaching over 1 000 000 tonnes (t) in 2001 (Figure 6.1) and worth over US$400 million in 2004. In 2005, Norway was the largest global producer with 641 000 t (Statistics Norway 2006), Chile was second with 472 000 t (AAFC 2006), Scotland was third with 136 000 t (SSPO 2006), then Canada’s British Columbia with 63 441 t, Canada’s New Brunswick with 35 000 t (DFO 2006) and Ireland with 14 000 t (Browne & Deegan 2006, Tlusty et al. 2007). This global increase has however been tempered by several operational issues, including localised pollution such as nutrient enhancement in water, benthic impacts from uneaten food, faeces and chemical treatments, the effect of escapes on wild populations including genetic modification and the spread of disease (FAO 2004). More recent concerns have included the amounts of fishmeal and fish oil required to produce carnivorous finfish, and the sustainability of using wild-caught feed as worldwide availability decreases (Tacon 2005). Tacon (2005) reported that farmed salmon consumed 10.3% of global fishmeal and 44.3% of global fish oil in 2003. It has been argued that salmon farming is unsustainable because more fish go ‘in’ 134

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

BLBK019-Ward

July 14, 2008

19:4

GLOBALGAP – Building Consumer Confidence in Aquaculture Sustainability Table 6.1

135

Milestones in salmon aquaculture.

1857

First hatchery propagation of Pacific salmon

1950s–1960s

USSR, Japan, United States and Canada begin enhancement programmes

1960s

Norwegian salmon aquaculture emerged

1974

Private, for-profit salmon ranching starts in Oregon

After 1976

Japan chum hatchery increases rapidly

1979

Norway, United States, Canada, Chile, Japan and Scotland have emerging salmon farming industries

Late 1970s–1980s

North American and Japanese hatchery programmes grow significantly

1980

World farmed salmon production accounts for about 1% of world salmon supply

1983

World farmed salmon production exceeds world wild chinook salmon harvest

1986

World farmed salmon production exceeds combined world wild chinook and coho salmon harvest

1990

World farmed salmon production exceeds combined world wild chinook, coho and sockeye salmon harvest

1991

World farmed salmon production exceeds Alaskan salmon harvest (all species)

1992

World farmed salmon production accounts for about 46% of world salmon supply

1994–1995

Chile introduces the chef-ready pin-bone out fillet; US imports escalate

1996

World farmed salmon production exceeds combined harvest of all wild salmon species; Atlantic salmon dominates pen-raised production

1996–2004

Increasing market development with farmed salmon as the leader. International prices and production costs continuously decline. Increasing criticism of salmon enhancement programmes. Chile and Norway establish record production levels in 2004 with a joint production of nearly 1.2 million t (round weight). Gap between world aquaculture production and wild combined harvests widens.

From Anderson 1997.

than come ‘out’. In 2002, 2.13 kg of wild fish were required for each 1 kg of salmon produced, an improvement from the 3.16:1 ratio in 1997 (Naylor & Burke 2005). However, a report by the Terram Foundation of Chile has recently suggested the feed conversion ratio is as high as 8.5 kg of feed for every 1 kg of salmon produced (Pinto & Furci 2006, Tlusty et al. 2007). In response to these concerns, governments have introduced a wide variety of management tools, techniques and legislation in order to establish environmentally sustainable salmon farming practices (Tlusty et al. 2007). In addition, European retailers, recognising the importance of farmed salmon to consumers, have decided, initiated by Royal Ahold, to develop an international certification standard together with the salmon farming industry to try and address these sustainability issues.

BLBK019-Ward

136

July 14, 2008

19:4

Seafood Ecolabelling

Figure 6.1

Global Atlantic salmon production from 1950 to 2004. (From FAO 2004.)

6.2 About GLOBALGAP GLOBALGAP started in 1997 as an initiative of agricultural producers and their retailer customers belonging to the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (Eurep). It has subsequently evolved into an equal partnership of agribusiness producers and their retail customers with the mission to develop widely accepted standards and procedures for the global certification of good agricultural/aquaculture practices (GAP). The following milestones have been achieved:

r The first global conference was held in 1999 (Paris, France), where 17 retailers decided to introduce independent verification as the basis for supplier compliance. r In 2000 (Barcelona, Spain), GLOBALGAP established the partnership principle between retailers and producers and presented results of trials with the fruit and vegetables protocol. r In 2001 (Bologna, Italy), GLOBALGAP announced the first ISO Guide 65 accreditation of a certification body for auditing against the fruit and vegetables standard, and the partnership between retailers and producers was formalised.

BLBK019-Ward

July 14, 2008

19:4

GLOBALGAP – Building Consumer Confidence in Aquaculture Sustainability

137

r In 2002 (Cape Town, South Africa), the first regional GLOBALGAP conference r

r

r r r

outside of Europe combined with the first train-the-trainer seminar in Africa took place. In 2003 (Madrid, Spain), GLOBALGAP presented version 2 of the fruit and vegetable protocol as the result of the revision process, proclaimed the start of the Flowers and Ornamentals protocol, and opened a new, transparent standard equivalence benchmarking procedure. In 2004 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), the GLOBALGAP standards for coffee and aquaculture were launched and the first certificates were issued to farms based on the integrated farm assurance standard. During the same year, the first GLOBALGAP Asia Conference in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) was sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-Based Industries of Malaysia and triggered the first GLOBALGAP certification of an oil palm plantation. In 2005 (Paris, France), the first GLOBALGAP compound animal feed reference standard was published and a new version of the integrated farm assurance was launched. In 2006 (Prague, Czech Republic), the global GLOBALGAP event for standard revision and implementation took place. In 2007, GLOBALGAP launched the third version of its good agricultural practice standard. More than 500 experts ranging from producers, traders, retailers, governmental and non-governmental organisations from 56 countries have provided proposals, comments and suggestions during an intensive 2-year stakeholder discussion period resulting in the latest standards (http://www.globalgap.org/cms/front content.php?idcat=48).

Currently, 38 retailers and food service companies are members of GLOBALGAP. Retailers worldwide use GLOBALGAP in their supply chains to obtain assurance of, for example, food safety and traceability of products to the farm level. A professional, closely associated network of more than 119 certification bodies that have been accredited to an international standard (ISO Guide 65) has been developed. The building of this certification capacity has helped the spread of certified producers in more than 80 countries worldwide, including small-scale farmers in developing countries. GLOBALGAP has also developed some strong relations with stakeholders outside the immediate sphere of the industry including NGOs, government organisations and intergovernmental organisations.

6.2.1 Governance Governance of the GLOBALGAP organisation is controlled through the GLOBALGAP Board, which in turn is elected by the retailer and supplier members and is chaired by an independent chairman (Figure 6.2). The executive management of the GLOBALGAP secretariat, its managing director, represents GLOBALGAP on the Board. The Board agrees on the vision and short- and long-term strategy and

BLBK019-Ward

138

July 14, 2008

19:4

Seafood Ecolabelling

GLOBALGAP Board

Sector committees

GLOBALGAP secretariat F V

F O

L B

CBC Figure 6.2

The GLOBALGAP governance structure.

related activities of the organisation. The sector committees (SCs) are also elected by the retailer and supplier members, and are established to develop and maintain the standards. These SCs work with a core group of retail and supplier members who have technical expertise in the particular field of the standard and make decisions about the content of the control points and the compliance criteria making up the standards. The Certification Body Committee (CBC) members are elected by their peers, i.e. certification bodies who are GLOBALGAP members. The main function of the CBC is to harmonise the interpretation of the compliance criteria set by the SC and to provide this information back into the SCs who are the owners of the various standards. All the above-mentioned committees are elected for a period of 3 years and the terms of reference document for each committee is available on the GLOBALGAP website (www.globalgap.org).

6.2.2 Process of standard development GLOBALGAP Standards are submitted to a revision process every 3 years. The consultation process takes place within GLOBALGAP members – retailers, food service, suppliers and associates – and within non-members willing to participate in this process or as invited experts. Participation up to now has also included NGOs working in specific sectors that have an interaction with the GLOBALGAP certification areas. New standard development within GLOBALGAP takes place at the request of its members. Technical standard input is provided in the same way as the consultation process mentioned above. Trialling of any new versions of the standards on farms forms part of the standard development process before their final adoption and launch. New modules to be incorporated into the GLOBALGAP

BLBK019-Ward

July 14, 2008

19:4

GLOBALGAP – Building Consumer Confidence in Aquaculture Sustainability

139

set of standards are subject to the approval of the responsible SC, and final approval must be obtained from the GLOBALGAP Board.

6.2.3 Training and implementation GLOBALGAP recognises the global need for qualified GLOBALGAP training, which can be cost-efficient and customised for growers. The GLOBALGAP training also serves as a voluntary introduction and facilitation for a farmer’s entry into GLOBALGAP certification. There is no formal requirement for producers to show proof that a staff member or external adviser has attended a GLOBALGAP training course. GLOBALGAP offers two types of training:

r Train-the-trainer workshops – advertised on the website for all interested parties (GLOBALGAP members and non-members). At these workshops, GLOBALGAP members can take an optional examination to become an approved train-the-public trainer to provide a limited but sufficient number of qualified trainers and register them on the GLOBALGAP website. Once qualified, the trainer can conduct classroom training courses (train-the-public) using GLOBALGAP normative documents as published on the GLOBALGAP website and other information that is provided on the trainer extranet from time to time. r In-house workshops – these are not advertised on the GLOBALGAP website, and are offered on request. These workshops also include the train-the-trainer examination. The training is also an exercise between certification bodies to exchange experiences with interpretation of the standard, and some of these discussions have been taken into consideration in the revision processes for improved standards implementation. This feedback is provided from the GLOBALGAP CBC to the SCs in question.

6.2.4 Auditing and certification Independent, third-party certification is the key tool to provide credibility, transparency and integrity of quality assurance systems for the food industry. Certification bodies (CBs) wishing to perform this activity within GLOBALGAP have to demonstrate compliance with these characteristics to accreditation bodies (ABs). The GLOBALGAP General Regulations has detailed CB requirements for GLOBALGAP certification, including the need to achieve EN45011/ISO Guide 65 accreditation for the GLOBALGAP standard in question. These requirements are assessed by national ABs through a standardised approval process, which verifies that the operational documents include not only the GLOBALGAP General Regulations, but also a well-organised communication system with the GLOBALGAP secretariat

BLBK019-Ward

140

July 14, 2008

19:4

Seafood Ecolabelling

and their clients, based on independency, impartiality, confidentiality and integrity principles. Also, all the CB staff involved in GLOBALGAP certification are listed and evaluated against the GLOBALGAP auditor or inspector qualification criteria. GLOBALGAP seeks to gain qualified input from national experts in their own language with respect to interpretation of the standards as well as specific legal requirements within the different food categories covered by GLOBALGAP. The establishment of GLOBALGAP National Technical Work Groups is one important step towards achieving this goal. These groups work in close cooperation with the GLOBALGAP secretariat and the GLOBALGAP SCs and support and facilitate the GLOBALGAP implementation and continuous standard improvement processes. Compliance with GLOBALGAP standards consists of three types of control points (set out in the control points and compliance criteria documents (http://www.globalgap.org/cms/front content.php?idcat=48) that the producer is required to comply with in order to obtain GLOBALGAP certification:

r major musts (mandatory 100% compliance); r minor musts (mandatory 95% compliance); and r recommendations (voluntary).

6.2.5 Accreditation of certification bodies Certification bodies must apply to an accreditation body for accreditation to EN45011 or ISO/IEC Guide 65 in the relevant GLOBALGAP area (crops, livestock or aquaculture) or the relevant benchmarked scheme after signing the GLOBALGAP Licence and Certification Agreement. The accreditation body to which the CB applies must be a signatory to the multilateral agreement on product certification and must:

r either be part of the European Co-operation for Accreditation; or r be a member of the International Accreditation Forum which has been subject to a peer evaluation in the product certification field with a positive recommendation in its report; and r have signed the memorandum of understanding with FoodPLUS GmbH within either European Co-operation for Accreditation or International Accreditation Forum. The national ABs assessing and granting accreditation to CBs for GLOBALGAP certification follow ISO/IEC 17011 which is an international standard defining ‘general requirements for ABs accrediting conformity assessment bodies’. Only after the CB has been accredited to EN45011 or ISO/IEC Guide 65 for the applicable GLOBALGAP area, the CB is entitled to print the GLOBALGAP logo (see Chapter 1) on the certificate as proof of successful approval of their certification practices.

BLBK019-Ward

July 14, 2008

19:4

GLOBALGAP – Building Consumer Confidence in Aquaculture Sustainability

141

6.2.6 Benchmarking and approval of equivalent certification standards Many other on-farm quality assurance systems have been in place for some time prior to GLOBALGAP, so a way had to be found to encourage the development of regionally adjusted integrated crop management systems to avoid the need for farmers to conduct expensive, multiple audits. Under GLOBALGAP, existing national or regional quality assurance schemes that have successfully completed the GLOBALGAP benchmarking process are recognised as equivalent to GLOBALGAP.

6.3 The integrated aquaculture assurance standard At the end of 2004, a new sector standard was launched by GLOBALGAP to include aquaculture. The new integrated aquaculture assurance standard provides aquaculture farms and retailers with a set of criteria for good aquaculture practices. The new standard follows the format of other GLOBALGAP codes, covering critical areas from record keeping, chemicals/medicines management, worker health and safety and (to a lesser extent) environmental and social issues. The new standard enables aquaculture farms to ensure that their produce meets the primary food safety demands of the retail and food service market. To retailers this means that farmed fish joins other food commodities such as fresh fruits and vegetables, cereal and livestock farming and coffee that can be certified to meet GLOBALGAP standards. The farmed salmon standard covers all production stages up to slaughter. A chain-ofcustody standard (http://www.globalgap.org/cms/front content.php?idcat=48) covers all stages up to the retail store assuring traceability back to the certified farm, thereby covering the entire supply chain of certified product. The GLOBALGAP aquaculture assurance standard far farmed Atlantic salmon was developed over 3 years in close cooperation with major food retailer Ahold, its prime European supplier of farmed salmon (Marine Harvest Pieters) and certification body Soci´et´e G´en´erale de Surveillance (SGS). Other major salmon producers joined the project after its commencement. The standard is freely available on the GLOBALGAP website (http://www.globalgap.org/cms/front content. php?idcat=48) and was formally presented for the first time at the GLOBALGAP Conference in November 2004 in Amsterdam. Most of the major salmon farming companies have now achieved GLOBALGAP certification, or are in the process of doing so. As a farmed salmon aquaculture standard that has been developed and accepted by the salmon farming producers and the major retail and food service buyers, GLOBALGAP has proven to be an effective tool to assure food safety and related sustainability issues to a growing number of consumers. A GLOBALGAP standard for farmed tropical shrimp to cover food safety, environmental and social matters

BLBK019-Ward

142

July 14, 2008

19:4

Seafood Ecolabelling

is also now being developed (2006–2008) in consultation with retailers, suppliers, environmental and social NGOs. The GLOBALGAP farmed salmon standard will be revised around 2010 using a more thorough stakeholder consultation process similar to that used for farmed shrimp. This will result in up-to-date GLOBALGAP standards reflecting current industry, consumer and NGO issues through a process of continuous improvement of aquaculture sustainability standards.

References AAFC (2006) The Canadian farmed salmon industry. Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Available at: http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/canada/4220 e.htm [accessed on 20 February 2008]. Anderson, J.L. (1997) The growth of salmon aquaculture and the emerging new world order of the salmon industry. In: K.L. Pikitch, D.D. Huppert & M.P. Sissenwine (Eds) Global Trends: Fisheries Management, pp. 175–184. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Browne, R. & Deegan, B. (2006) Status of Irish aquaculture 2005. Available at: http:// www.bim.ie/uploads/reports/Status%20of%20Irish%20Aquaculture%202005.pdf [accessed on 20 February 2008]. DFO (2006) 2005 Canadian Aquaculture Production Statistics. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. FAO (2004) Cultured aquatic species information programme –Salmo salar. Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service (FIRI). Available at: http://www. fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Salmo salar [accessed on 20 February 2008]. Naylor, R. & Burke, M. (2005) Aquaculture and ocean resources: raising tigers of the sea. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 185–218. Pinto, F. & Furci, G. (2006) Salmon piranha style: feed conversion efficiency in the Chilean salmon farming industry. Analisis de Politicas Publicas, 35, 1–15. SSPO (2006) Scottish salmon says market increasing. Media release, Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation. Available at: http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/mediacentre/ releases/2006/111006.asp [accessed on 20 February 2008]. Statistics Norway (2006) Fish farming, 2005. Preliminary figures. Oslo, Norway. Available at: http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/05/fiskeoppdrett en [accessed on 20 February 2008]. Tacon, A. (2005) State of information on salmon aquaculture feed and the environment. Feed Report for Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue, WWF. Available at: www. worldwildlife.org/cci/pubs/Feed final resaved2.pdf [accessed on 20 February 2008]. Tlusty, M.F., Thompson, M.R., Tausig, H. & Bergen, L. (2007) Global Salmon Assessment. New England Aquarium, Boston, USA.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:24

Chapter 7

Advancing the Global Marketplace for Sustainable Seafood: The Seafood Choices Alliance Michael Boots

There are so many differing views about seafood sustainability. Seafood Choices Alliance bridges an important gap in brokering those views and helping companies make the right decisions. Mike Barry, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility, Marks & Spencer, May 2006 The ‘sustainability movement’ is now an integral part of the seafood business. Top trends for 2005, IntraFish, December 2004

7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 Conditioning the climate for sustainable seafood The ocean plays a critical role in our everyday lives and in the future of our planet, particularly, and increasingly, when it comes to the food we eat. Yet despite its importance, we have not been very good stewards of our marine resources. We have squandered a historical bounty, fished beyond ecological limits and polluted the seas. A growing human population puts even more pressure on the ocean (Delgado et al. 2003). In many nations, seafood is still a relatively affordable source of protein, although an increasing demand from consumers in developed countries exerts a strong incentive to fish or farm more of the ‘luxury’ species. Seafood now provides at least 20% of the average per capita animal protein intake for more than 2.6 billion of the planet’s people (FAO 2007). Diners crave seafood – Americans each eat about 16 lb (about 7.3 kg) per year – and restaurants and retailers want to meet that demand. Seafood has long been the most popular appetiser selection on American restaurant menus (Han 1998, Ramseyer 2000, Perlik 2006). Increases in seafood consumption SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

143

BLBK019-Ward

144

June 2, 2008

19:24

Seafood Ecolabelling

in the EU countries outpaced those in the US between 2000 and 2003, averaging 2.3% (FAO 2005, NMFS 2005). The world’s supply of seafood is simply not infinite. Many fisheries have reached maximum capacity and some historically important ones – such as the Grand Banks and Georges Bank cod fisheries – have collapsed. The FAO concludes that ‘the global potential for marine capture fisheries has been reached, and more rigorous plans are needed to rebuild depleted stocks and prevent the decline of those being exploited at or close to their maximum potential’ (FAO 2005). The result is that average per capita global food fish supply declined from 14.6 kg in 1987 to 13.2 kg in 1992 and has since remained stable (FAO 2007). We must make better seafood choices in order to preserve a lasting and diverse supply of seafood. Buyers of seafood – from restaurateurs and chefs to retailers and distributors – have the power to make that change. With increasing population, growing world appetites and shrinking supplies, purchasing decisions that focus on choosing fish wisely can create a more environmentally responsible marketplace. The Seafood Choices Alliance (www.seafoodchoices.org) works towards that goal with a novel approach. This chapter will tell the story of the alliance by examining the genesis of the Seafood Choices Movement as a whole, outlining the organisation’s strategy and suite of programmes, and outlining the growth of a global alliance.

7.1.2 The power of social marketing SeaWeb, Seafood Choices Alliances’ parent organisation (www.seaweb.org), seeks to harness the power of communications to protect the ocean and the life within it. Its social marketing efforts aim to raise public awareness of vital ocean issues, advance science-based solutions, and mobilise decision-makers to promote ocean conservation. Grounded in high-quality science and research, SeaWeb provides decision-makers with accurate, credible information to advance marine conservation, and uses communications expertise to translate that science into understandable, actionable initiatives. SeaWeb’s goal since its inception in 1995 has been to provide trustworthy and unbiased information on ocean issues to a number of target audiences. At the time, no other organisation existed that presented the ocean crisis to media and others in an interrelated, consistent and systematic way. SeaWeb recognised early that the media is the filter through which we view the world and understand issues. For better or worse, when the media prioritises an issue, American consumers and those around the world tend to prioritise it as well. Until ocean issues were packaged effectively for our fast-paced media environment and covered in popular, powerful media outlets, SeaWeb knew that ocean conservation would remain a ‘back-burner’ issue. One tangible and effective way to package the issue for the media and to reach key decision-makers has been to leverage ‘the ocean-plate connection’. Through market

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:24

Advancing the Global Marketplace for Sustainable Seafood

145

research, SeaWeb demonstrated that most Americans identified most closely with the state of the ocean through the food on their plate. Based on that reality, SeaWeb created the Seafood Choices Alliance in 2001 to harness the power of consumer choice and to unite the seafood industry and the conservation community in support of an ocean friendly supply of seafood. Through this strategic social marketing approach, SeaWeb and the Seafood Choices Alliance have raised the profile of sustainable seafood over the last decade. By engaging the media and a diversity of effective spokespeople, they have made consumers and large-volume buyers aware of the overall state of the ocean, threats to particular species and choices that can be made in the open marketplace in favour of conservation. Importantly, such work also paves the way for certification and ecolabelling schemes, which are only viable when sufficient resources have been devoted to conditioning the marketplace for their arrival. If consumers and the media were not aware of the problem of overfishing and the threats facing particular fisheries, a label in the supermarket would be attempting to solve a problem that few knew existed. For that reason, certification, ecolabelling and awareness raising must go hand in hand.

7.1.3 Filling a unique niche The Seafood Choices Alliance is an international association that unites leading voices from the seafood industry and the conservation community in support of an ocean-friendly supply of seafood. The Alliance consists of over 50 member organisations from the conservation community (including NGOs, aquaria, and academic institutions) and more than 3000 food industry members (professionals such as wholesalers, retailers, suppliers, fishermen, chefs and others) from over 50 countries. Its straightforward mission is to harness market forces around the globe to encourage changes in purchasing behaviour. The idea behind the organisation is simple – making responsible seafood choices is a winning proposition for everyone. Seafood Choices Alliance is unique in the ocean conservation world. While it implements its own projects and programmes that are market-driven, science-based and integrated across all sectors of the seafood industry, it does much more than that. It operates as a non-profit association and the hub of a much broader movement (the ‘Seafood Choices’ movement) that represents the collective efforts of both seafood professionals and conservationists. The Alliance has evolved to represent a growing diversity of voices and expertise and provides an opportunity for seafood sellers, buyers and producers to channel their commitment in a positive, proactive way. It is a classic social marketing movement that does not presume to replace traditional advocacy efforts, but serves to complement them. Traditional advocacy, while essential in terms of bringing issues to public attention and generating a public will for change, is frequently insufficient by itself when it comes to bringing such change to fruition. Unfortunately and all too often, such approaches bring protection to fish species only after their populations have

BLBK019-Ward

146

June 2, 2008

19:24

Seafood Ecolabelling

collapsed. With these limitations in mind, the Seafood Choices Alliance tackles the challenges of the world’s fisheries through an entirely different lens. Stealing a page from other social marketing success stories, the Seafood Choices Movement enables everyone that purchases seafood to affect change though their daily buying decisions. The fundamental work of the Alliance is to build a marketplace for sustainable seafood – to affect lasting change in fisheries policy while also moving the leaders of the food industry to leverage major market change. To achieve this, the Alliance seeks out opportunities to harness market forces and the power of consumer choice in favour of ocean conservation and to make the issue increasingly relevant and salient to a growing collection of influential leaders. Like the American Automobile Association working to promote and empower the car industry or the Organic Trade Association seeking to advance and transform the marketplace for organic products, the Seafood Choices Alliance is working to advance the issue of sustainable seafood and empower the industry to transform the marketplace. It also plays a unique role providing leadership to the movement as a whole by engaging an expanded set of leaders from the food sector and encouraging greater collaboration and consistency among the conservation community. The ultimate goal is a world where all those affiliated with the seafood industry – from fishermen and fish farmers to distributors, retailers, restaurants and consumers – act on the belief that a healthy ocean is vital to human life and essential to ensuring a sustainable supply of seafood for all to enjoy.

7.1.4 Shifting perceptions and attitudes The Seafood Choices Alliance is in many ways the ‘drumbeat’ of activity that helps keep the issue of sustainable seafood consistently in the press when individual members’ activities cannot. It provides a contextual framework in which these individual programmes and businesses can be positioned in the minds of the media, policymakers and others as leaders of something that is collectively much larger and has much further reach. In so doing, it serves to ‘prime the pump’ and condition the media, policy and seafood sector climates in support of conservation. The Seafood Choices Movement has significantly changed attitudes within the media and the seafood industry. When the Alliance started its work, most commentary from the industry and in the media seemed to echo one consumer rights group which asked rhetorically: ‘What can you say about a group of alarmist publicityseekers whose greatest passion is “saving” fish species that aren’t even endangered? Are they crazy? Power-hungry?’ (Center for Consumer Freedom 2007). Just 7 years later, a dramatic shift is evident, and the Alliance has a well-earned seat at the table as a reliable resource and a pragmatic, honest broker to its food industry members. A strong sign of the shift in industry’s perception of the movement appeared in late 2004, when a cover story in the industry’s major trade journal SeaFood Business suggested ‘now that sustainable sourcing is on the minds of the

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:24

Advancing the Global Marketplace for Sustainable Seafood

147

seafood market’s biggest buyers, a sea change toward ecological sustainability is brewing’ (Duchene 2004). Since that time, a growing chorus of industry outlets has heralded the rise of the sustainable seafood market, with headlines in 2006 and 2007 such as ‘Sustainability Changing Global Seafood Industry’ and ‘“Tipping point” evident at Seafood Summit as consumer demand for sustainability becomes mainstream’ (McGovern 2006, Sackton 2007). With its annual summit as the signature event for sustainable seafood, the Alliance is the engine driving this sea change.

7.2 Building the Seafood Choices Movement In a [sustainable seafood] movement that is little noticed, largely unorganized but winning converts among national chains and independent operators, the purchasing habits and vendor relationships of foodservice operators are undergoing sweeping changes and serious scrutiny in the name of environmental correctness (Milford Prewitt (Prewitt 2000)).

As documented in the other chapters, influencing the marketplace and consumer choices for seafood has become a cornerstone of conservation strategy across a spectrum of ocean conservation issues. Furthermore, a growing constituency of businesses, industry leaders and concerned citizens – from seafood suppliers and retailers to consumers and chefs – now want to ensure that the choices they make are beneficial not only to their own health and well-being, but also to the health and well-being of the environment. Actions driven by larger social or moral motivations are neither new, nor they are unique to ocean conservation or the environment. Nevertheless, those early successes in shifting purchasing behaviour in the marketplace – from consumer boycotts of Icelandic fish products (to protest about that country’s commercial whaling activities) to the ‘Dolphin-Safe’ tuna campaigns (designed to pressure seine-netters in the Eastern Pacific Ocean to catch yellowfin tuna without harming or killing dolphins) – served as precursors to the Seafood Choices Movement. The primary difference was that these campaigns focused on protecting marine mammals, for example, whales and dolphins, as opposed to the species that were the target of the fisheries.

7.2.1 The early days of the movement The Seafood Choices Movement, as it exists today, grew out of the groundbreaking Give Swordfish A Break (GSAB) campaign, a joint effort of SeaWeb and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) between 1998 and 2000 in the US (Box 7.1). GSAB provided a foundation for the Seafood Choices Movement in two important ways. First, the campaign successfully conditioned the policy and media climates to be receptive to an ocean conservation message. GSAB was the first campaign that showcased the existence of a consuming public that identified with

BLBK019-Ward

148

June 2, 2008

19:24

Seafood Ecolabelling

Box 7.1 The Give Swordfish A Break Campaign: Breaking Through to Give Swordfish a Break North Atlantic swordfish were in trouble, the victims of longlines that caught younger fish in record numbers, leaving too few to reproduce. By the mid-1990s, landings from U.S. East Coast vessels had dropped nearly 60% over 10 years, but fishermen had set close to 5 million more hooks. As 1998, the United Nations International Year of the Ocean, approached, the National Marine Fisheries Service announced that the fishery had 10 years to live. The new ocean conservation group, SeaWeb, turned to market research to determine how to mobilise public support for swordfish and many other overfished species. Surprisingly, surveys suggested that the seafood on consumers’ plates could be the key to convincing them of the need to protect ocean life. More research showed that swordfish could be the ‘poster-child’ for a campaign – over half of the people surveyed supported a temporary ban on fishing and even more indicated that they would be willing to stop buying the fish in stores or restaurants. The GSAB campaign would have unassailable science and simple policy goals: implementing a recovery plan within 10 years and protecting swordfish nursery areas. A partnership with the NRDC brought these traditional tools of oceans advocacy, but how would it get the word out to the public and engage the media? This is where SeaWeb’s social marketing experience identified a group of 27 high-profile chefs as ‘gatekeepers’, opinion leaders visible to consumers, reporters, and, in turn, policymakers. A publicity tour kicked off a media campaign with a fresh angle: the visible proponents of action were not environmentalists, but chefs, a group with a generally positive image and not typically associated in the public eye with activism. This social marketing approach won substantial buy-in within the food industry and, by extension, among the public. Cruise lines, the major grocery chain Wild Oats, and Bon Appetit magazine signed on, as did over 700 chefs. They saw their effect by November 1998, when trade journal Seafood Business announced that the campaign had ‘adversely affected short-term demand’ for North Atlantic swordfish. Sustained coverage and policy work resulted in a meeting between environmental groups and the Secretary of Commerce, a call by President Clinton for a ban on the sale and import of juvenile swordfish, and then a letter of support from 78 members of Congress to the Secretary. The campaign’s presence at the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas helped reduce the swordfish quota with strong backing from the US. When the government closed swordfish nursery areas in the summer of 2000, the campaign’s policy goals had been achieved. North Atlantic swordfish were firmly on the road to recovery and their populations reached 94% of levels considered to be healthy only 3 years later.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:24

Advancing the Global Marketplace for Sustainable Seafood

149

Among the chefs participating in the campaign were Nora Pouillon of Restaurant Nora and Asia Nora in Washington, DC.: ‘When SeaWeb and NRDC first approached me about this campaign, I knew I had to participate’, she said. ‘I knew there was a problem just watching swordfish get smaller and smaller in the markets. Changes had to be made. It is wonderful that the initial result of these changes are positive. I can’t wait to see the large fish come back’. ‘We saw striped bass come back in the 1980s after we stopped fishing them for a time. Now it’s swordfish’, said Rick Moonen of restaurant RM in New York. ‘As a restaurateur, I need to make sure my seafood supply is stable into the future. This is a victory for consumers who love seafood, and we need more victories like this’ (www.nrdc.org/wildlife/fish/nswordbr.asp). True to its name, the success of GSAB not only highlighted the effectiveness of a gatekeeper strategy, but it also created an audience among chefs and the consuming public keen to learn more about which other fish were ‘safe’ to eat and which should be avoided. It rapidly became clear that GSAB would not be a blip on the map, but would instead be the catalyst for a broader and more diverse effort that has come to be known as ‘the sustainable seafood movement’.

the state of the ocean through the food on their plate (the ‘ocean-plate connection’) rather than through a charismatic megafauna like marine mammals. The public was shown to be willing to put considerations of the health and well-being of the ocean above their own tastes and interests. In fact, the campaign mobilised an entirely new constituency for ocean conservation – the food sector – and paved the way for high-profile chefs to play a role in influencing both public opinion and public policy (Plates 1.3 and 7.1). Second, GSAB demonstrated the law of unintended consequences. The campaign was so successful in shining a light on the mismanagement of the North Atlantic swordfish that it led many to start asking questions about the other managed species as well. The success of GSAB spawned other campaigns that have collectively raised the profile of species on the brink of serious population crashes. SeaWeb designed Caviar Emptor in the United States and L’Autre Caviar in Europe (Plate 7.2) campaigns to protect endangered sturgeon populations that were becoming increasingly threatened with extinction. Take a Pass on Chilean Sea Bass, a campaign implemented by the National Environmental Trust, has effectively used chefs and food industry leaders to draw attention to the threats from illegal fishing that put populations of this fish at risk of commercial extinction. Throughout the swordfish campaign and thereafter, many chefs and journalists asked about other fish species and how to incorporate additional environmentally friendly choices on their restaurant menus and in the stories they wrote. In its August 2001 edition, Gourmet magazine volunteered that, ‘When food editor Katy Massam unwrapped the delivery from our fishmonger and found Chilean sea bass instead of

BLBK019-Ward

150

June 2, 2008

19:24

Seafood Ecolabelling

the striped bass she’d ordered . . . she was not pleased. We’ve stopped using Chilean sea bass because increased demand in recent years has led to its being overfished . . . ’ The magazine, which is published by Cond´e Nast Publications, was not obliged to inform its readers of this; indeed, had it occurred just a few short years before, it may not have been as comfortable making such a public statement on the subject. The burgeoning movement towards environmentally responsible seafood made the mix-up newsworthy. On the heels of this newfound attention to the suite of available seafood choices and a newly galvanised food sector, the Seafood Choices Alliance opened its doors to leverage that new momentum. Capitalising on the success of organising chefs and restaurants for the swordfish campaign, the next logical step was to maintain and expand that network to include seafood suppliers, distributors, retailers, fishermen and fish farmers. In addition, other conservation groups, many of them inspired by the success of GSAB, launched their own consumer campaigns utilising or showcasing restaurants and chefs. As a result, a critical mass began to form, and a genuine movement was underway. Today, a growing number of organisations and businesses are implementing targeted programmes to influence the seafood consumer and marketplace. Fisheries certification and ecolabelling schemes such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), educational campaigns bringing attention to species of concern (such as Chilean sea bass, beluga sturgeon/caviar and farmed salmon), and the seafood wallet lists of ‘green’ and ‘red’ choices have all benefited from the heightened awareness about sustainable seafood among consumers and the industry. Collectively, these efforts are evidence of the growing momentum behind communication-based social marketing strategies that seek to build an ocean conservation ethic through consumer purchasing and corporate procurement. The underpinning philosophy is that, over time, choices made in the open marketplace will influence the seafood industry and government regulators in favour of better conservation of ocean resources. By conducting research, identifying influential spokespeople, crafting appropriate messages that resonate with consumers, applying targeted pressure and offering strategic guidance to those with the greatest ability to influence seafood purchasing, the Seafood Choices Movement is working to ensure a lasting, diverse supply of seafood and healthy oceans.

7.2.2 Structure of the movement: Five pillars of seafood choices As the Seafood Choices Movement began to build a head of steam, not everyone set off down exactly the same track. It quickly became clear that success in shifting behaviour and influencing the marketplace requires a suite of diverse – but complementary – tactics and strategies. As a result, one can view the movement as resting on five distinct but related ‘pillars’, each representing a particular approach to bringing sustainable seafood to the table. The Alliance itself works to leverage

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:24

Advancing the Global Marketplace for Sustainable Seafood

151

efforts across these five categories to ensure that the whole of the movement is greater than the sum of its parts. (i) Broad-based education: One of the earliest attempts to educate consumers about sustainable seafood choices was a seafood card created by the National Audubon Society in 1998 that listed which seafood to avoid and which was safe to enjoy on environmental grounds (Plate 7.3). That card, published in Audubon’s eponymous magazine, was followed by the development of a regional guide of seafood recommendations by the Monterey Bay Aquarium the following year (see Chapter 17). Such ‘fish cards’ have proven a popular and effective means of communicating with consumers on this issue and have increasingly highlighted both environmental and public health data about each species. The number of organisations providing seafood recommendations to consumers has increased from 2 in 1999 to over 30 in 2007, operating in 16 countries representing every inhabited continent. Although the proliferation of these seafood guides in only about 8 years has increased the distribution of environmentally responsible seafood information, it also poses a challenge of ensuring consistent recommendations for the consuming public. The Alliance has been instrumental in facilitating the development of a common list of seafood recommendations both in the US and in the Europe that could be utilised by all members. In 2004, the Alliance’s efforts resulted in the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Blue Ocean Institute, and Environmental Defense jointly producing ‘The Fish List’ – the first unified, national guide. The Alliance has also been facilitating a set of European-based conservation groups as they explore a common approach to seafood recommendations. (ii) Business-to-business communications: Business-to-business efforts enable retailers, wholesalers, distributors, restaurants and others to work together, and in tandem with environmental organisations, to ensure the sustainability of the products they pass through the supply chain. A large part of that effort involves breaking down barriers and building up trust among the various partners that must work together to expand the sustainability marketplace. While several environmental NGOs are establishing partnerships with major seafood buyers, the Alliance has worked to raise the level of trust among key players by hosting a series of business-to-business dialogues. These sessions provide a constructive forum where new ideas can be explored, challenges and obstacles discussed, and collaborations identified. Relationships built out of such dialogues have already resulted in new business-conservation partnerships on both sides of the Atlantic. In response to requests by key industry leaders and others seeking to move their companies towards greater sustainability, conservation organisations have developed a suite of actionable tools for seafood businesses. For example, Seafood Choices Alliance recently published Sourcing Seafood,

BLBK019-Ward

152

June 2, 2008

19:24

Seafood Ecolabelling

the first comprehensive guide and sourcebook for seafood professionals (www.seafoodchoices.org/resources/sourcingseafood.php) (Plate 7.4). This directory of over 450 suppliers of ocean-friendly seafood items, now in its second edition, connects those businesses seeking to serve sustainable seafood with those selling it. Similar hands-on tools for seafood buyers will be developed in 2007 and 2008 for industry professionals in the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland and Belgium. While these tools are becoming more robust, the conservation community and the seafood industry continue to identify greater information sharing as a critical foundation for expanding the marketplace for sustainable seafood. In seeking to create a forum where that type of exchange and networking can occur, the Alliance sponsors the Seafood Summit, an annual conference that brings together the leaders from across the seafood supply chain to cultivate new relationships and explore the latest trends in the expanding marketplace for ocean-friendly seafood. In recent years, several partnerships have also emerged between seafood and food sector companies and conservation organisations. For example, Environmental Defense has teamed up with the supermarket chain Wegman’s Food Markets (one of the United States’ largest privately held food retailers) to develop sustainability and health-based seafood purchasing standards (www.environmentaldefense.org/partnership project.cfm?subnav= project fullstory&projectID=30). WWF and German-based retail giant Metro Group have joined forces to shift fish procurement practices across their operations, and WWF is working with Wal-Mart to assist in its transition towards the procurement of more MSC-certified seafood. Monterey Bay Aquarium has teamed up with Bon Appetit Management Company and its parent company, foodservice giant Compass Group North America, to transform its procurement processes (see Chapter 17). The New England Aquarium and Ahold USA (one of the largest seafood purchasers and the parent company of supermarket chains Giant Foods, Stop & Shop, and Tops) have forged an agreement to develop ocean-friendly purchasing recommendations for seafood (see Chapter 16). Furthermore, the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership has established a productive relationship with McDonald’s to develop purchasing standards and guidelines related to well-managed fisheries (www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/purchasing/supply initiative/sustainable fisheries.html). (iii) Issue campaigns: Perhaps the most tried and tested means of addressing ocean challenges has been through species-specific issue campaigns. Yet they have not necessarily been the mainstay of the Seafood Choices Movement. From the early days of the campaign to label ‘dolphin safe’ tuna, conservation organisations have used such campaigns to draw attention to the state of the ocean. Over the past several years, SeaWeb has taken the lead in transforming this interest into several seafood campaigns that take this interest in the ocean

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:24

Advancing the Global Marketplace for Sustainable Seafood

153

to the next level. The ‘Give Swordfish a Break’, ‘Caviar Emptor’ and ‘L’Autre Caviar’ campaigns have grown in the US and around the globe, and have won significant media attention, shifts in consumer behaviour, and changes in government policy. (iv) Markets efforts: Markets-based campaigns exert consumer pressure to effect change in the vertical distribution system, normally at the retail or producer level. While a number of Alliance partners are currently implementing or planning such efforts, one specific example is the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR) in Canada (www.farmedanddangerous.org). CAAR’s ‘Farmed and Dangerous’ campaign, in the coalition’s own words, encourages retailers like Whole Foods and Safeway to do the responsible thing and stop selling conventionally raised farmed salmon until it is produced in a responsible way: proven to be safe for the environment and safe for human consumption. When powerful companies like Whole Foods and Safeway make a stand and say that they refuse to sell a certain product because of concerns over how it is produced, they send a clear message that it is time for industry to reform harmful practices (www.farmedanddangerous.org/about/FAD.html).

CAAR educates and informs consumers about farmed salmon and alternatives, while working in parallel to make retailers and distributors aware of its consumer campaign, and to recruit them to its cause. At time of writing, over 150 restaurants and retailers across British Columbia have committed to not selling farmed salmon. Similar campaigns exist across North America and Europe, including a well-publicised 2006 effort by Greenpeace UK that encouraged more environmentally responsible sourcing policies by several leading UK supermarket chains. (v) Fisheries certification: The types of efforts described in the previous four pillars generate ‘issue saliency’ for sustainable seafood, raising awareness and paving the way for consumer acceptance of ecolabelled seafood products. Independent, third-party certification schemes build on that increased salience by providing consumers and buyers with the confidence that the products they purchase have been rigorously and independently assessed to a credible standard of sustainability. In addition, certification schemes typically result in the use of an approved, point-of-purchase logo (the ecolabel) that can effectively brand the product – in this case sustainable seafood – to ensure instant recognition by the consuming public. Perhaps the most famous certification and ecolabel for seafood remains the ‘dolphin-friendly’ label on cans of tuna. However, since 1997, a more broad-based initiative has sought to develop and implement certification criteria that are more robust and relevant to all types of wild-caught seafood. The MSC – jointly established by WWF and the international consumer products conglomerate Unilever (which owns the Birds

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

154

19:24

Seafood Ecolabelling

Eye, Hellman’s and Liptons brands, among many others) – contracts with independent certifiers to judge the health of a fishery and its ecosystem, its management system, and compliance with relevant laws (see Chapter 4). MSC-ecolabelled seafood products are available from suppliers and retailers in 26 countries around the world. For example, there are currently ten such companies each in the US and UK (including Whole Foods Market, Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer and Wal-Mart), and three in Australia (Seaways, John West and Talley’s). In addition to such fisheries certification programmes, there are also so-called ‘soft’ certifications, in which products are not specifically labelled with a certifier’s logo, but the assumption of a certain ‘eco-friendly’ standard is implicit in the manufacturers’ products. One example of this is New Hampshire-based EcoFish Inc., a US seafooddistribution company that carries only seafood meeting strict sustainability criteria established by an advisory panel from the conservation community (www.ecofish.com). Taken together, these five categories of activities – diverse in their strategies, tactics and outcomes – work in a complementary manner to shift behaviour and influence the marketplace in favour of conservation.

7.3 Seafood Choices Alliance: An international association for sustainable seafood The great thing about Seafood Choices is that it’s a unifying body that does a tremendous amount of worthy efforts in the marine conservation field, especially on the education side. They had a great idea to pull all these efforts under one roof to try to unify everything into one cohesive message, which I feel is very important (Henry Lovejoy, President of EcoFish Inc., 9 February 2002).

7.3.1 Philosophy and approach As noted above, the Seafood Choices Alliance is a non-profit association that unites a growing number of voices from the seafood industry and conservation community. It remains the only international association that is solely focused on keeping the issue of sustainable seafood topical, and represents all those who believe that the global seafood supply must be managed for sustainability. The Alliance’s approach is grounded in the core beliefs that the seafood industry can be a leading voice for environmental sustainability and that there is a strong, growing marketplace for sustainable seafood. Taking a challenging, but pragmatic approach, the Alliance identifies individuals within companies, and parties across the supply chain, and connects them with results-minded conservation partners to expand the marketplace for sustainable seafood. There are several distinguishing characteristics of the Alliance that set it apart from other organisations seeking to promote and deliver conservation outcomes.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:24

Advancing the Global Marketplace for Sustainable Seafood

155

First, the Alliance is market-driven: Seafood Choices engages industry to provide solutions to the crisis of overfishing and the long-term health of the ocean. Often these solutions are in advance of, or in addition to, government policy requirements. Second, it is science-based: the work is grounded in high-quality scientific research, ensuring that its members have the most accurate, credible information to advance solutions on issues related to sustainable seafood. Third, it is integrated: Seafood Choices brings together the often-opposing camps of the seafood industry and conservationists to engage in honest dialogue, identify common ground and explore potential areas for collaboration. And perhaps most importantly, it is participatory: our partnership-based association is open to individuals and businesses interested in actively engaging in and working towards responsible business practices that improve seafood sustainability. These characteristics allow the Alliance to leverage the power of markets, science and policy to promote sustainable seafood and a healthy ocean. The Seafood Choices Alliance exists to help protect the marine environment, and its underlying philosophy is to create a climate in which it can emphasise the value (economically, environmentally and socially) of sustainable seafood. In turn, that climate allows all of the individual activities, projects and investments – by both the conservation community and the global seafood industry – to be branded as part of a growing, more powerful trend that is bigger than any one organisation or programme. The theory of change underlying the Alliance’s approach is that this ‘conditioning the climate’ must be done strategically and consistently to ensure that the climate is always ripe for dialogue and market transformation to occur. In the end, the Alliance is aiming for ‘common issue recognition’ – a collective recognition that paves the way for concrete, incremental commitments from major buyers to begin to shift the marketplace. This ‘big tent’ approach is not about everyone being in lock-step together or always agreeing philosophically (i.e. in the sense of a coalition). Instead, this approach explicitly works to encourage dialogue among disparate perspectives so that the result is greater awareness, recognition or salience and a climate in which a marketplace for sustainable seafood can emerge. Industry members are asked to engage in a dialogue that reflects their concern about threats to the ocean and then to take action, such as buying seafood from sustainable sources. At the same time, each company is applying those principles in ways unique to their own corporate structure and operational capacity. The Alliance works to provide seafood businesses with a path towards incremental change and seeks to open the door widely to all of those willing to take part in the debate.

7.3.2 The work of the alliance The previous section outlined the overall philosophy and general approach of the Seafood Choices Alliance. It is now instructive to examine a few key examples illustrating how the organisation turns that theory into practice, and how

BLBK019-Ward

156

June 2, 2008

19:24

Seafood Ecolabelling

the Alliance has evolved its work over time to adapt to the changing seafood marketplace. The Alliance implements a suite of activities that, taken together, leverage the efforts of its industry and conservation members and significantly impact on the marketplace for sustainable seafood. Those activities fall into the following two primary categories:

r Those designed to maintain the global momentum for change by keeping the issue of sustainable seafood a prominent and compelling issue in the trade media and among key industry players. r Those that provide the Alliance’s members with a suite of actionable and pragmatic tools that allow them to chart an incremental path from their current operations and policies to ones that are more economically and environmentally sustainable. The most potent example of an activity that does both is the Seafood Summit, an annual conference that began in 2001 to bring together seafood industry professionals, fishing groups, conservation organisations and educational institutions to discuss issues relevant to the sustainable seafood movement. What started primarily as an NGO coordination meeting has evolved into a formal conference open to all sectors of the sustainable seafood community. The fourth annual summit, held at the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago in 2004, reached beyond North America for the first time and showcased the MSC, shining a light on the growing global nature of the movement. Just 4 years later, the 2008 summit in Barcelona, Spain, drew hundreds of attendees from organisations and businesses across the globe. On the materials side, the Alliance looks to develop materials for its members, such as the first comprehensive guide and directory for seafood buyers who are looking for sustainable seafood products to meet their procurement demands (www.seafoodchoices.org/resources/sourcingseafood.php). The Sourcing Seafood directory (Plate 7.4) is widely viewed as the first step to bridging the gap between those offering sustainable seafood recommendations, those demanding sustainable seafood and those supplying it. While highlighting some species already certified by the MSC, it also suggests other ‘good choices’ that are either farmed or may not yet have made their way through the MSC’s formal certification process. The directory contains information on each of 50 species caught or farmed in an eco-friendly manner (as assessed by global conservation groups), including a description of each species and its uses, seasonal availability, place of origin, buying tips, health advisories and much more. It also provides complete contact listings of over 450 environmentally conscious seafood purveyors. Similar hands-on tools for seafood buyers will be developed in 2008 for industry professionals in the UK and across French-speaking Europe. Sourcing Seafood has received much praise from seafood professionals and from members of the conservation community. ‘Sourcing Seafood has helped me not only

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:24

Advancing the Global Marketplace for Sustainable Seafood

157

to become a more informed buyer but also to discover new sources and new products I can feel good about featuring. And that’s something I know my customers appreciate as well’, said Cindy Walter of Passionfish restaurant. Rob Mayo of Carolina Classics Catfish adds, ‘Sourcing Seafood is a fantastic resource, especially for independent companies like ours. We work hard to be environmentally responsible, and our efforts set us apart from others in the industry. We’ve received new business specifically because of our listing in the sourcebook’. Such a strong reception reflects the growing awareness of chefs, retailers and wholesalers that sustainable seafood can be good for business, as well as good for the ocean. Each year, Seafood Choices Alliance hosts a variety of gatherings beyond the Seafood Summit that convene industry leaders to both foster increased dialogue and raise corporate issue awareness. Through those efforts, the Alliance has developed a track record of mobilising and catalysing industry leaders through dialogue. This work involves bringing together leaders from different sectors and diverse geographies for candid conversations to highlight a new issue or emerging trends, explore opportunities for collaboration across traditional divides or demonstrate the case that sustainable seafood is good for business. For example, as a convener of Sustainable Seafood Roundtables with Walt Disney World since 2005, the Alliance has been able to engage major buyers from Wal-Mart, Unilever, Darden, Ahold and Sysco to explore the challenges and opportunities of ‘scaling up’ sustainable operations within those companies. As evidenced in those forums, such dialogue can spark fruitful new partnerships and motivate some key players into action. As a result of the 2005 meeting, Wal-Mart solidified its sustainable seafood purchasing policy announced in February 2006 (http://www.walmartstores. com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=665). These gatherings also provide a key opportunity to leverage the progress of major EU buyers with their US counterparts, and vice versa. As an unbiased convener, the Alliance will continue to host numerous such dialogues in the US and Europe each year which will bring new players to the table and raise the bar for those already there. Sometimes these discussions will involve major retail buyers, while at other times it may be more strategic to convene discussions between others (e.g. foodservice distributors, restaurant chains, wholesalers and suppliers) at different points in the supply chain. While activities such as the Seafood Summit, Sourcing Seafood, and the Alliance’s role as an ‘honest broker’ facilitator continue to attract robust participation from members and significant attention from the media, the Alliance has evolved its tactics to keep pace with an ever-changing market. By serving as consultant to companies as they chart their course towards more responsible procurement practices, highlighting innovative actors and emerging trends at regional restaurant and retail promotions, and showcasing sustainable seafood suppliers in the directory, the Alliance is increasing the role that key players across the supply chain are able to play in the sustainable seafood movement.

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

158

19:24

Seafood Ecolabelling

7.4 Looking forward: The evolution of a more diverse and global alliance Cumulatively, all those [activities like boycotts and guides] have led to what we’re seeing now. It may have been a painful process to get to this point, but I certainly think [the industry and consumers] are on the right track. Everybody is more or less on the same page, and it’s a good page to be on (David Coombs, executive vice president of Steve Connelly Seafoods; Quoted in ‘Eco-buying ups the ante’, SeaFood Business, (October 2004).

When the Seafood Choices Alliance was officially launched in June 2001, there was neither demonstrable demand for, nor mainstream supply of, ‘sustainable’ seafood. In a sense, the initial task of all those tackling this issue was to simultaneously raise the profile of sustainable seafood and work towards creating a market for it. As a result, the initial focus was on engaging a critical mass of chefs, restaurateurs, retailers and other seafood purveyors in order to demonstrate to seafood suppliers that significant demand existed for seafood that was caught or farmed in environmentally responsible ways. To build on initial successes in raising the profile of ocean-friendly seafood, the Alliance and its members are now working not only on the consumption side of the equation, but also with those who supply seafood, such as distributors, wholesalers and suppliers. During the 7 years that the Alliance has been in existence, the movement has grown rapidly in breadth and heft. From barely registering on the radar screen, it has made considerable strides in advancing an agenda for sustainable seafood. Once, the announcements by Darden restaurants, Legal Sea Foods and Giant supermarkets that they would no longer be offering Chilean sea bass (www.giantfood. com/foodsafety/foodsafety faqdetail.htm?faq id=108) would have been considered earth-shattering. Today, such announcements are regarded as just three more significant steps in the growing success of the movement. The new realities of the seafood market may have been best summed up by John Connelly, president of the industry trade group National Fisheries Institute: ‘From a public policy perspective, the seafood community’s greatest opportunity . . . is to better communicate the sustainability and wholesomeness of seafood’ (IntraFish 2004). The Alliance focused its initial efforts in the United States, working to build a robust marketplace for sustainable seafood in a country of seafood lovers. Increasingly, however, the Alliance has also recognised an urgent need for the broader Seafood Choices Movement to reflect a sophisticated understanding of international fisheries conservation efforts and the global seafood market. Seafood is a global commodity and no matter where one lives, grocery stores are stocked with salmon from Norway and Alaska, shrimp from Thailand and Peru and swordfish and tuna from the North Atlantic and South Pacific. Given the international nature of the seafood market, the Alliance has taken tangible steps to expand its focus more globally – identifying opportunities to

BLBK019-Ward

June 2, 2008

19:24

Advancing the Global Marketplace for Sustainable Seafood

159

strategically engage conservation organisations, industry leaders and consumers. For example, employing the model that has proved effective in the US, the Alliance formally announced its expansion to Europe at the 2005 European Seafood Exposition in Brussels. With offices in the US, Paris and London, and partners in South America, Asia and around the world, the Alliance is actively engaging leaders up and down the seafood supply chain in open dialogue and in search of opportunities to ‘green’ their operations in favour of sustainability. The second annual business roundtable at the 2007 European Seafood Exposition brought together 23 buyers and suppliers from Germany, France, the US, the Netherlands, the UK and Switzerland to discuss the challenges and opportunities presented by the global seafood market. The Alliance also continues to employ a marketing approach, recently partnering with WWF, Greenpeace, the North Sea Foundation and the Marine Conservation Society (UK) to conduct public opinion research in Europe on consumer demands for information about where seafood comes from and how it was harvested. Seafood Choices Alliance is using this information to design programmes to harness the growing global interest in changing the seafood market and to influence large consumers of seafood from Asia and the Pacific to Europe and Canada.

7.5 Conclusions From small beginnings – focus groups that assessed the levels of awareness and understanding of members of the public and seafood professionals – the Seafood Choices Alliance, and the broader movement it serves and leads, is emerging as a genuinely global force, working towards a world of environmentally responsible seafood. There is no longer much debate between industry and environmentalists about the condition of the oceans and the global depletion of many wild fisheries – ‘sustainable seafood’ is now on the lips of most everyone connected to the industry. New sustainable seafood activities are launched almost daily across the globe. The discussion now centres on how suppliers and retailers will operationalise sustainability – in other words, what to do next and how best to do it. This new momentum has created enormous opportunities and challenges for the industry and the Alliance. Shifting demand and influencing a dynamic, global marketplace in favour of ocean-friendly seafood requires a multitude of tactics, resources and expertise. Fisheries certification is but one solution and has become more complicated as ‘organic’ certification for farmed seafood gains ground. Issue campaigns and education efforts raise consumer awareness and distinguish between the environmental impacts of different seafoods. Partnerships between marine conservation organisations and large seafood buyers are becoming increasingly common. Importantly, these myriad approaches work together to bring about the vision of a sustainable seafood marketplace. The Alliance continues to help the seafood industry navigate

BLBK019-Ward

160

June 2, 2008

19:24

Seafood Ecolabelling

these options and make the choices that will serve the oceans, the fishermen and the consumers of the future.

References Center for Consumer Freedom (2007) SeaWeb profile. Available at: www.activistcash. com/organization overview.cfm/oid/192 [accessed on February 2007]. Delgado, C.L., Wada, N., Rosegrant, M.W., Meijer, S. & Ahmed, M. (2003) Fish to 2020: Supply and demand in changing global markets. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and World Fish Centre. Washington, DC; World Fish Centre, Penang, Malaysia. Duchene, L. (2004) Eco-buying ups the ante. Seafood Business, 23(10), 1. FAO (2005) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2004. FAO Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAO (2007) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. FAO Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Han, G. (1998) 1997 Menus – Old and new share the plate. Restaurants USA Magazine, May 1998. Available at: www.restaurant.org/rusa/magArticle.cfm?ArticleID = 300 [accessed on February 2007]. IntraFish (2004) Top trends for 2005. IntraFish, 3(12). McGovern, D. (2006) Sustainability changing global seafood industry. Intrafish, 4(4). NMFS (2005) Fisheries of the United States 2005: Current Fishery Statistics No. 2005. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. Perlik, A. (2006) Sea-faring success: appetizer lineups are fresh with seafood, showcasing local, seasonal species and products flown in from around the world. Restaurants and Institutions, April 2006. Prewitt, M. (2000) New pet project. Nation’s Restaurant News, December 11, 2000. Ramseyer, R. (2000) Seafood rides wave of popularity on chain menus. Seafood Business, 19(2). Sackton, J. (2007) ‘Tipping point’ evident at Seafood Summit as consumer demand for sustainability becomes mainstream. Seafood.com News, 30 January, 2007.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Chapter 8

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish Geoffrey Muldoon and Peter Scott

8.1 Introduction This chapter presents first, a summary of the process used to develop and implement an International Standard (the Standard) for the live reef food fish trade (LRFFT). The Standard was initially developed as a voluntary code of conduct for use by industry, government and marine conservation organisations to improve the operation of their live reef food fish (LRFF) fisheries. The aim of the Standard was to make these high-value fisheries more sustainable and, specifically, to make them more capable of providing improved livelihoods for local fishers, providing a stable and healthy supply of LRFF to the market, and supporting the conservation of reef habitats. The Standard covers a range of the important aspects of production, transport, handling and sale of live fish, and is expected to make an important contribution to improving the sustainability of the highly diverse, and politically complex, set of industries that comprise the production and trade of live reef fish for food. The second part of the chapter discusses the prospects for implementing the Standard, including a framework for assessing the potential for establishing a certification programme within the LRFFT.

8.2 The live reef food fish trade in Asia-Pacific Live fish have long been traded throughout South-east (SE) Asia as a luxury food item. Because of their superior qualities (taste and texture), species captured on coral reefs have become the most preferred for the trade (Sadovy & Vincent 2002). Live reef food fish destined for Hong Kong markets are currently sourced from across the Asia-Pacific region (Plates 8.1 and 8.2). Those countries closer to Hong Kong have been in the trade for a considerable time while other more distant countries are more recent, and often infrequent, participants. Beginning with the Philippines in the mid-1970s, there has been a gradual infiltration of the LRFFT into other SE Asian and the Indo-west Pacific countries (Figure 8.1). Industry expansion SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

161

BLBK019-Ward

162

June 25, 2008

10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

Figure 8.1 2003.)

Expansion of the live reef fish trade from the 1970s to the present. (From Sadovy et al.

has usually occurred by Hong Kong-based companies negotiating with industry and/or governments in the source countries for access to the resource through local businessmen. Fish enter the trade either as wild-caught fish that are held briefly before export (about 50–70% of the total trade), as undersize fish that are grown in cages or ponds until they reach market size (15–40% of the trade) or as fish reared from egg to market size in controlled conditions in full-cycle aquaculture (about 10– 15%) (Sadovy et al. 2003). While some countries do support full-cycle aquaculture methods, most rely on wild-caught juveniles for grow-out. Grow-out of undersized wild-caught fish has expanded considerably in SE Asia – most probably in response to overfishing of market-size fish – using fish collected locally and occasionally cultured fish imported from Taiwan (Sadovy 2001). While the increase in growout from hatchery production is a positive industry development, there is growing concern over the parallel increase in grow-out of wild-caught juveniles for market. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in some regions, market-size fish of some species have been extirpated, and now only juveniles are caught and grown-out locally to be sold when they attain market size. Mainland China, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Australia and Vietnam have historically been the major exporters of wild-caught LRFF, and wildcaught fry and fingerlings for grow-out, accounting for approximately 95% of all recorded imports into Hong Kong (Muldoon 2007). Historically, small quantities of LRFF have been exported from Japan, Myanmar, Singapore, Brunei and Cambodia in the SE and East Asia region, the Maldives and the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean,

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish Table 8.1

163

The main species of the live reef food fish trade.

FAO (common English) name

Scientific name

Trade status

Highfin (humpback/mouse) grouper Humphead (Napoleon/Maori) wrasse Giant (Queensland) grouper Leopard coral grouper Squaretail coral grouper Spotted coral grouper Brown marbled (tiger) grouper Camouflaged (flowery) grouper Orange-spotted (green) grouper Malabar (Malabar) grouper Hong Kong (red) grouper

Cromileptes altivelis Cheilinus undulatus Epinephelus lanceolatus Plectropomus leopardus Plectropomus areolatus Plectropomus maculatus Epinephelus fuscoguttatus Epinephelus polyphekadion Epinephelus coioides Epinephelus malabaricus Epinephelus akaara

High value High value High value High value Medium value Medium value Medium value Medium value Other grouper Other grouper Other grouper

and Papua New Guinea, the Solomon and Marshall Islands, Kiribati and Fiji, in the Pacific Ocean. In the case of these smaller-exporting countries, the volume of trade has been restricted by social, political, operational and transport difficulties resulting in only sporadic activity. The LRFFT comprises a wide variety of fish, but is dominated by grouper (Serranidae) species. Within the grouper complex, fish can be characterised as low-, medium- and high-value fish species (Table 8.1). The high- and medium-priced fish are sourced mainly from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Australia, while the lower-value fish are imported from People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Thailand. The regional trade is not well monitored, making estimates of quantities of LRFF traded across SE Asia and the Indo-Pacific region difficult to determine. Nonetheless, the total regional trade has been estimated to be about 30 000 tonnes per year (Sadovy et al. 2003). With the exception of Australia, most exporting countries maintain only limited records of their LRFF exports, which reflect the large numbers of fish landing sites, a limited capacity to monitor remote fishing grounds, and the long distances between fishing grounds, export hubs and markets. It is estimated that 60–70% of the LRFF traded internationally are imported into Hong Kong, transported by sea or air, depending on the location of fishing grounds or holding facilities and available air links. Other smaller consumer markets for LRFF in SE Asia include Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Taiwan. Singapore is the primary consumer of LRFF outside Hong Kong, while most of the fish sent to Taiwan were reported to be grouper fry for grow-out and later export complemented by minor local consumption (Muldoon 2007). The most reliable and consistent records of the regional LRFFT can be derived from import data collected by relevant government departments in Hong Kong – the Census and Statistics Department (CSD) and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD). Nonetheless, the reliability of these estimates is hindered by under-reporting as there is no requirement for Hong Kong-licensed

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

164

10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

live-fish transport vessels to declare imports arriving by sea. Records of LRFF imported by sea are thought to document less than 50% of all shipments. Using available data and some best guesses, recorded imports into Hong Kong in 2002 were estimated to be 18 000–22 000 tonnes (Petersen et al. 2004). In the years since 2002, annual imports have increased by 27.5% (Muldoon, unpublished data). As much as 60% of imports into Hong Kong are re-exported to PRC in order to avoid costly tariffs on imported fish into the PRC (AFCD, personal communication). Based on government data on imports and Hong Kong retail prices, the gross value of the trade in Hong Kong is around US$600 million per year. Using regional trade estimates, the region-wide retail value of the LRFFT could be as high as US$800 million per year. While volumes of LRFF traded remained stable during most of the 1990s, the LRFFT contracted sharply in the wake of the financial and economic crisis in East and SE Asia that began in 1997. Prior to 1997 trade data were coarse, with both marine and freshwater live fish categorised broadly as either food or ornamental fish. After 1997, a Harmonised Code System was adopted which enable clearer identification of live reef food fish categories by key species and country of origin for those live fish transported by air to Hong Kong. The data show that from a peak of around 22 000 tonnes in 1998 ‘declared’ imports declined by almost one-third in 1999, and have failed to recover markedly in subsequent years. After 1999, the LRFFT became increasingly focused on fewer species – primarily the high-value and mid-priced groupers (Sadovy et al. 2003). The ‘other marine fish’ category contribution to the total trade declined from 54% in 1999 to less than 37% in all years to 2003. In contrast, high- and medium-value species (‘high-value’ category in the data) trebled to more than 22% of total imports by 2002, and in 2005 imports of the ‘high-value’ category were still two and a half times greater than in the years prior to 1999 (Figure 8.2). Some of the factors thought to have contributed to this change in market demand include:

r overall weaker retail prices making the purchase and transport of lower-priced fish, that previously made up the bulk of imports, financially unviable;

r health concerns such as severe acute respiratory system (SARS) and ciguatera which impact on consumer prices in Hong Kong and have an even greater impact on exports from source countries; and r increased access to reliable air transport leading to increased imports of highvalue species via this, ‘lower risk’ transport mode. As noted above, Hong Kong and China make up about 75% of the regional consumption of LRFF. Domestic consumption of LRFF in source countries is difficult to estimate but is likely to be insignificant compared to export quantities. Even in Australia where disposable incomes are considerable, almost all of the annual production of 1200 tonnes of LRFF is exported to Hong Kong (Muldoon 2006). One exception to this is the live-fish fishery of California on the US west coast.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish

High value

Other Grouper

Other Marine Fish

165

Snooks & Basses

22,000 20,000

Import Volume (tonnes)

18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year Figure 8.2 Total imports (tonnes) of live reef food fish into Hong Kong from 1997 to 2005. (From Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department (HKCSD), Hong Kong Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD).)

The California LRFF fishery commenced in 1988, mainly to supply local Asian communities and has rapidly expanded from a small hook-and-line and trap fishery targeting only a few species to a multi-gear fishery targeting more than 10 major groups representing more than 50 species. The fishery expanded rapidly from producing 24 tonnes in 1988 to a peak production of more than 900 tonnes in 1995. Since 1997, catch has remained fairly steady at between 500 and 700 tonnes annually (Lucas 2006). These data on landings are thought to underestimate the actual volume of fish caught, given misreported and unreported landings, mortalities and illegal catch, although no indication of the extent of this underestimation is available (Lucas 2006). As with fisheries elsewhere, the expansion of the fishery is attributed to willingness by consumers to pay a premium for live, as opposed to dead, product – a premium which is passed on to fishers in the form of higher exvessel prices. Plate-sized fish of approximately 1 kg in weight are the preferred size in the US market, with such fish fetching an ex-vessel price of between US$ 4/kg and US$ 22/kg (Tegner & Dayton 1997). Within SE Asia, supplies of LRFF come predominantly from artisanal and subsistence fisheries that are characterised by low technology, remoteness, long transshipment distances to export hubs and markets, dispersed landing sites and rudimentary storage and transport infrastructure. The market chain for the LRFF product can therefore be both extended and complex, with product passing though many levels of trade between the fisher and the consumers (Figure 8.3).

BLBK019-Ward

166

June 25, 2008

10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

Figure 8.3 A generic schematic of the LRFF supply chain showing movement of fish from fisher to consumer (restaurant).

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish

167

8.3 Certification within the LRFFT Growing interest in supplying the LRFFT has driven traditional supply countries in SE Asia to widespread expansion (Figure 8.1) and progressive depletion of their local resources. Continued over-exploitation of reef resources, in concert with the ongoing use of harmful fishing practices, has endangered the sustainability and future of what could be a profitable industry benefiting large numbers of people in the Asia-Pacific region. The demand-led expansion of the LRFFT has given rise to a number of environmental, social and economic concerns including:

r the sustainability of supply due to overfishing and depletion of target species that are important in other subsistence or commercial fisheries;

r a reliance on wild-caught juvenile fish for grow-out, which contributes to the depletion of the target fish stocks, and the use of ‘trash fish’ to feed aquaculture species; r the environmentally damaging aspects of some harvesting techniques, including cyanide fishing and targeting of juveniles and spawning aggregations, affecting fish and their habitats (Cesar et al. 2000); and r social issues arising from resource access conflicts and use, misuse of income generated and the use of destructive fishing practices. Often, additional income generated for communities from the LRFFT has come at a cost to future ecological, economic and social sustainability. Despite a concerted effort over the past decade to reduce the adverse social, economic and biological impacts of the LRFFT, it continues to pose major challenges for the future sustainable use of this marine resource. In part, this reflects the narrow focus of previous programmes on the discrete aspects of the LRFFT such as fishing practices in producer countries (e.g. cyanide fishing), biological impacts (e.g. targeting of spawning aggregations), production alternatives (e.g. hatchery-based culture of LRFF) and demand-side monitoring. While non-government organisations (NGOs) and regional agencies maintain ongoing LRFFT-related programmes and continue to make important and effective efforts to address trade concerns, there remains a need for a whole chain-of-custody approach to redress the negative impacts of the trade. The need for innovative programmes that support responsible fisheries capture and aquaculture through trade mechanisms is recognised as one solution to reforming the trade in marine species (Civic Exchange 2001). Third-Party Conformity Assessment Certification Schemes are often proposed for addressing problems associated with the sustainable harvesting of natural resources in both marine and terrestrial sectors (CCIF 2002). The problem, however, is that it is hard to demonstrate the efficacy and application of these schemes across a broad spectrum of natural resource issues. A useful first step may be the development of voluntary ‘codes of best practice’ contained within a ‘standard’. While such ‘best practices’

BLBK019-Ward

168

June 25, 2008

10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

can be a useful mechanism in supporting industry change, voluntary standards alone will usually lack the necessary potency to encourage the adoption of changing behaviour in order to effect lasting industry transformation. Consequently, the use of voluntary certification as a market-based solution to specific environmental and social problems in the LRFFT will need to be carefully considered. And further, not all problems can be adequately tackled using certification as the main tool. In contrast to a ‘certify at all costs’ approach, we consider that a staged assessment of the suitability of the industry for certification, and of market acceptance for certified product, are essential precursors to any programme to introduce certification to the LRFFT. The remainder of this chapter describes the work undertaken to develop a credible and robust standard of best practice for the LRFFT through a transparent and international multi-stakeholder consultation process, and presents a possible framework for moving from voluntary standard to a prototype certification scheme.

8.4 Developing the international standard 8.4.1 Background In February 2001, a regional workshop involving the major NGOs involved with the LRFFT (The Nature Conservancy (TNC), International Marinelife Alliance (IMA) and the World Resources Institute (WRI)) was convened to develop a collaborative strategy to address the threats posed by the LRFFT in the Asia-Pacific region (Graham et al. 2001). A key output from that workshop was a recommendation emphasising the importance of developing a set of industry ‘best-practice standards’ for the LRFFT covering the chain of custody from reef to primary consumer – the importer, wholesaler and restaurateur or restaurant patron. In response, a project team drawn from TNC, the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC), and IMA was formed to help initiate a project to develop these industry standards. The project aim was to bring together stakeholders to determine the best practices needed to enable the LRFFT to move towards becoming a more sustainable, higher-value industry capable of improving the livelihoods of local fishers, providing a stable and healthy supply of fish to the market, and protecting coral reef habitats that are the basis for productive reef fisheries. The project focused on developing a credible and robust standard for the LRFFT through a transparent and international multi-stakeholder consultation process. The standard addressed both the wild capture and aquaculture of LRFF as well as the distribution and trading of these fish, and included standards and practices relating to each aspect of the industry, from assessing reefs and target reef fish populations to dealing with human health and safety concerns. Prior to commencing the drafting of the Standard, a number of preliminary research tasks were undertaken by representatives of the project team organisations (the Key Partner Group) to facilitate the process, including:

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish

169

r a review of existing information on supply and demand issues in the Asia-Pacific region, including perspectives on current practices and areas for improvement, existing best practices employed in a well-regulated fishery in Australia and consumer-related aspects; r a review of recommendations based on the MAC experience in developing an environmentally and socially sustainable standard for the marine aquarium trade within an artisanal fishing context; r identifying the substantive elements for inclusion in a code of best practice and the areas where further data collection or research may be necessary (see below); and r the strategic implementation process required to gain the broadest possible involvement and acceptance of an international code of best practice. During this preliminary period the drafting team undertook extensive informal consultation with representatives of the catching (source countries) and importing (demand countries) sectors in order to understand the boundaries and limitations and acceptability of the proposed standard. Producing a robust and credible standard relied on the co-operation and support of industry members in these countries. In the initial months the standard was referred to as a code of best practice rather than a standard in order to allay nervousness amongst the industry members about the regulatory implications of a typical standards document. As the project developed, however, those who took part in the consultative process became less apprehensive about the concept of a standard.

8.4.2 Collaborative management models The project team considered a number of different models for promoting collaborative resource management of fisheries including: (i) certification and ecolabelling; (ii) voluntary codes of conduct; and (iii) industry standards (Civic Exchange 2001). Of these models, certification and ecolabelling for the LRFFT were considered to be inappropriate starting points due to the large volumes and the number of species traded, the diffuse nature of the industry, the uniquely ‘live’ aspect of the product and uncertainty about the market acceptance of certification. Voluntary codes, especially the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, set out ‘principles and international standards of behavior for responsible practices with a view to ensuring effective conservation, management and development of aquatic resources with due respect for ecosystem and biodiversity’ (FAO 1995). Certification and ecolabelling systems also typically impose high levels of requirements for assessments and compliance. In contrast, voluntary codes, such as the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, provide frameworks for coordinated national, regional and international efforts, and their voluntary participation seemed to be the more suitable starting point for the LRFFT.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

170

10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

8.4.3 Determining key elements for inclusion in the LRFFT Standard In order to produce a meaningful and effective standard, the drafting team adopted a multi-faceted process of gathering background information on the key elements for inclusion in the LRFFT Standard. This approach included:

r compiling all available information on current industry best practices using available background papers and reports;

r synthesising existing codes of conduct and best practices for fisheries and other agricultural products and conducting interviews with representatives of the various enabling organisations, including but not limited to: (a) FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; (b) Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations; (c) Forest Stewardship Council Requirements and Criteria for Sustainable Forestry; (d) Marine Aquarium Council International Performance Standards for the Marine Aquarium Trade; and (e) Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. It was also necessary to gain realistic perspectives from supply and demand sectors throughout the Asia-Pacific region where the LRFFT operated by conducting informal consultations with a broad range of individuals and organisations with experience and expert knowledge of the LRFFT. Those consulted were drawn from:

r staff within the key partner organisations based within the Asia-Pacific region (i.e. Pacific Islands, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Australia); r informed individuals within organisations with close affiliations to the trade including industry peak bodies (e.g. Hong Kong Chamber of Seafood Merchants (HKCSM)), management agencies, enabling agencies (e.g. the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), the Network of Aquaculture Centres of Asia (NACA)) and non-partner NGOs (e.g. the Society for Conservation of Reef Fish Aggregations (SCRFA)); and r relevant stakeholders attending larger international meetings and conferences such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Conference of Parties (COP), again utilising the contact networks of the key partner organisations. As a preliminary step in the development of the first draft of the standard for external review, a pre-draft standard listing of key requirements was formulated by the drafting team in late April 2002. This pre-draft document, which focused on the wild capture of target LRFF species and their handling, holding and distribution,

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish

171

detailed the key requirements for inclusion in a code of best practice for the LRFFT. At that stage, aquaculture activities had not been incorporated into the overall Standard document.

8.4.4 The scope of the LRFFT Standard One of the initial steps in the standards development process was to determine and outline the scope within which the standard would be produced. This would identify the principal stages along the chain of custody for LRFF products, and the stakeholder groups for which best practices would be required. This scope was reviewed and amended throughout the project until the final iteration, arriving at the final scope of application for the International Standard for the Live Reef Food Fish Trade (Figure 8.4). This final version of the scope recognised that on the production side, not all fish captured are market-ready, with an increasing number captured as sub-market-size juveniles for short-term grow-out (Sadovy & Vincent 2002). Moreover, a large number of fingerlings are sourced for longer-term mariculture production (Sadovy 2001) while small quantities of adult fish are captured for use as broodstock to supply seed for hatchery-based mariculture facilities. The final scope also recognised the varying levels of vertical and horizontal integration among buyers and traders along the market chain, and the husbandry, holding and transportation issues associated with the marketing of LRFF (Muldoon & Johnston 2006).

8.4.5 Defining a preliminary standard structure Like the FAO Code of Conduct, the Standard was initially conceived as a set of key principles and criteria, compliance with which would be voluntary. However, throughout the standard development process, it was recognised that the Standard might eventually form the basis for an international third-party certification programme (Graham et al. 2001). Voluntary codes of conduct are often criticised for being vague, for failing to be adequately implemented, and for lacking sufficient monitoring of compliance (Civic Exchange 2001). Any code of conduct must therefore address these issues in order to be truly effective. After careful deliberation, the drafting team decided to adopt a principle-type approach to the organisation of the Standard. A principletype approach is a top-down approach where overarching principles highlight key considerations accepted as critical to devising or improving the operation and management of the fishery in terms of biological, ecological, social and economic considerations. Within each principle a number of sub-principles elaborate guidelines or criteria specifying how fishery managers can fulfil their responsibilities in terms of adhering to these principles (Cochrane 2000). The primary reason for this approach was the recognition that the Standard itself should be a concise document and relatively easy to understand, such as that of

Scope of the international standard for the trade in live reef food fish.

172

June 25, 2008

Figure 8.4

BLBK019-Ward 10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish

173

the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations, rather than the complex prose of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries or the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) Principles and Criteria. This principle-type approach recognises that the Standard is intended to be ‘descriptive’ as opposed to ‘prescriptive’ in its intent and to provide a framework for national management agencies to incorporate the set of universal principles into their management plans in a way that suits their needs (Cochrane 2000, Peacey 2001). The preliminary Standard document consisted of bullet-point criteria with underlying descriptors that clarified those criteria. With this ‘top-down’ structure, it was expected that these bullet points would need to be augmented with supporting best-practice documentation and guidance on training and implementation. The former would outline how and why these underlying principles were important to improving overall sustainability within the trade, while the latter would need to describe how each agent along the chain of custody would, or could, satisfy the relevant principles. The Standard comprises three parts: Part 1 – dealing with the Capture of Wild Live Reef Food Fish, Part 2 – dealing with Aquaculture of Live Reef Food Fish, and Part 3 – dealing with the Trading and Consumption of Live Reef Food Fish. Each part is further divided into sections to reflect the full range of issues:

r Part 1 comprises three sub-sections addressing: (i) the development of new LRFF fisheries – new fisheries were uniquely identified in recognition of the potentially adverse impacts of LRFF fisheries and the requirements for such fisheries to demonstrate their economic and biological viability on trial basis; (ii) the management of new and established fisheries; and (iii) the operations of participants in new and established fisheries. r Part 2 comprises two sub-sections addressing: (i) the management of fisheries linked to aquaculture activities; and (ii) the operational activities of hatcheries and grow-out operations. r Part 3 comprises two sub-sections addressing: (i) the trading by agents along the market chain engaged in holding and distribution of LRFF; and (ii) the responsible consumption of LRFF through restaurants. The Standard is provided in detail at www.livefoodfishtrade.org – a summary of the structure of the Standard is shown in Figure 8.5.

8.4.6 Development, review and revision of the standard In order to ensure its integrity, it was considered that the Standard would need to be developed through an open multi-stakeholder consultative process, engaging, where possible, with stakeholders from all participant groups. Consequently, a three-tiered approach – targeted consultations, technical workshops and an external review process – was adopted by the drafting team to supplement the internal process.

An outline structure of the international standard for the trade in live reef food fish. (From www.livefoodfishtrade.org.)

174

June 25, 2008

Figure 8.5

BLBK019-Ward 10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish

175

Targeted consultations An informal network of individuals with various expertise and exposure across the industry and the standards as well as the certification-type approach to conservation and management was used to formulate the preliminary standards document. A comprehensive round of consultations was carried out by members of the drafting team and the key partner group to engage as many relevant governments, NGOs, industry peak body representatives, industry participants, and research personnel as was possible. Technical workshops Before the wider public dissemination of the draft Standard, input from a range of key industry participants and researchers was used to refine the preliminary standards documents. The intention was to bring people together in formal settings, to scrutinise the content of the Standard, and amend it from both a technical and practical standpoint before wider distribution. For this purpose, two technical workshops were convened: one focusing on the resource assessment, monitoring and management in capture fisheries; and one focusing on management and operational best practices for LRFFT-related mariculture production activities. The contribution of these workshops to improving the Standard are summarised in Boxes 8.1 and 8.2. Box 8.1 Outcomes from the Resource Assessment, Monitoring and Management Workshop This workshop produced a number of outcomes and recommendations in relation to Part 1 of the Standard, the Capture of Wild Live Reef Fish including:

r expanding the number of requirements from 12 to 26 principles, resulting r r r r

in a more prescriptive set of requirements (this number was subsequently reduced to 21 principles); restructuring Part 1 into three key sections covering: (i) resource assessment and fishery viability for new fisheries; (ii) fishery management and planning; and (iii) fishing operations; improvement of the Standards structure to reflect the obligation for operators and agencies in source countries to recognise the holistic nature of the standard; the need to develop ‘tool kits’ to guide practitioners (at all levels of government, regional agencies) to facilitate the application of the standards; recognition that the principles should stipulate an achievable target in light of capacity limitations in source countries, particularly with regard monitoring programmes to:

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

176

10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

(a) (b) (c)

enable source countries to take responsibility for implementing or augmenting monitoring programmes; minimise dependence on outside expertise and support; prescribe simple and cost-effective sampling programmes that could be implemented on a long-term scale.

Box 8.2 Management and Operational Best Practices for LRFFT-Related Aquaculture and Mariculture Activities Workshop This workshop produced a number of outcomes and recommendations in relation to Part 2 of the Standard; the Aquaculture of Live Reef Food Fish including:

r merging of the previously discrete aquaculture and mariculture components within the Standard in recognition of the wide spectrum of reef aquaculture practices, and the close relationship between aquaculture and wild fisheries with respect to harvesting of fish seed and juveniles for grow-out and harvesting of wild-caught fresh fish for fish feed; r expanding the number of requirements to 11 principles that addressed the key issues and that had broad industry and research acceptance as ‘best’ or ‘better’ practices given the current state of knowledge (this number was subsequently increased to 12 principles); r recognition that while industry receptiveness and acceptance of the ‘traceability’ of cultured fish would be vital to its inclusion in the Standard, industry feedback suggested it was of a low priority; r recommendation that workshops involving local farmers and other stakeholders be held in 2–3 selected countries to enable the field testing and further development of aquaculture standards to engender ownership of the standards among industry stakeholders and to ensure a practical approach to their implementation.

External review of standards In addition to the incorporating outcomes from the two strategic technical workshops, an Expert Review Group was formed to undertake a detailed review and commentary on the Standard. The expert group comprised individuals who had been receptive to the project goals and objectives, were knowledgeable on various aspects of the LRFFT and had some experience of fishery standards. This group was tasked with reviewing the complete first draft of the Standard prior to wider distribution.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish

177

Multi-stakeholder standards development process The multi-stakeholder process sought to achieve a balance between inclusiveness, representation and effectiveness in order to expedite the process of development, but not at the expense of excluding important and strategic stakeholders. It was acknowledged by the partners in the project that achieving this balance during the developmental phase would ensure stronger buy-in and increased credibility in their implementation. The stakeholder participation base was broadened to ensure representation from relevant government departments, NGOs, industry peak bodies, and researchers and academics with a particular interest in the LRFFT. This expanded set of key stakeholders formed the LRFFT Standards Advisory Group (SAG). The SAG, ensuring adequate stakeholder consultation and involvement, was tasked with the further development and refinement of the Standard. The project team considered that ongoing refinement of the Standard and bestpractice guidelines would be best ensured through a combination of in-country ‘consultative seminars’ and a rapid field-based assessment of the in-country capacity to achieve the proposed Standard for wild-caught or aquaculture of LRFF. This process can be summarised as addressing the:

r practicability of monitoring and assessment techniques and management aspects of the Standard using recommended techniques and the capacity of source countries to comply with or support these components; and r the capability of fishing vessel operators, fish processors and traders to meet minimum best-practice standards for capture, storage, husbandry (including farming) and transportation along the market chain. Seminars were conducted in those source countries or regions where the LRFFT was in operation – Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Hong Kong, PRC and Australia – and focused on key supply (wild caught, mariculture, transport) and demand components of the Standard. These in-country seminars involved the participation of relevant government agencies, NGOs, academic experts, industry associations, and LRFFT industry participants including fishers, buyers, exporters, importer/wholesalers, restaurants and consumers. A key purpose of the consultative seminars was to introduce the Standard to a broad range of stakeholders not yet captured in the outreach activities. The use of these seminars was seen as vital to encouraging and ensuring meaningful participation from those stakeholders who are less likely to provide comments in writing and at international forums. The seminars proved very valuable in providing stakeholder feedback and resulted in many refinements to the Standard. Overall, one of the key issues arising out of these seminars was the wide variation that exists between monitoring, enforcement and management capacity, as well as the different technologies employed across countries engaged in the trade. It has been noted that developing countries have significant, and often legitimate, concerns

BLBK019-Ward

178

June 25, 2008

10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

about the widening use of trade and marketplace measures to promote sustainable fishing practices, particularly in terms of compliance costs and market access (Roheim & Sutinen 2006). Equally important is the consideration that an international standard should be set sufficiently high so as to not compromise the comprehensive and strictly enforced regulatory requirements already in place in some countries, while at the same time setting achievable targets for fishery participants and managers in other countries. For example, a desktop study comparing the operation of the LRFF fishery in Australia against the International LRFFT Standard showed this fishery to either meet or exceed all Requirements as laid out in the Standard pertaining to the Capture of Wild Live Reef Fish (Muldoon 2003). This was important as there was an expectation among some stakeholders that the Standard would ‘set the bar’ at the appropriate level so as not to undermine any market advantage that may already exist from the consumers’ demand for sustainably caught fish. The Standard was developed in two distinct stages. The first of these was the development, review and revision phase involving ‘industry experts’. The subsequent phase was an iterative review process to engage with multiple stakeholders through a series of in-country engagements (Figure 8.6).

8.5 Best-practice guidance and implementation As the Standard evolved it became apparent that a comprehensive ‘how-to’ tool kit, usable by industry stakeholders, and an NGO-supported capacity building and implementing programme would be of benefit. It was decided that the best-practice guidelines should take the form of an ‘implementation tool kit’ to ensure the meaning and intent of the LRFFT Standard were clearly understood and that sufficient direction and explanation were included to guide the reader. A CD ROM was developed that comprised Interpretation and Responsible Practice elements for each Requirement of the Standard as well as incorporating electronic copies of existing bestpractice guidance manuals and links to relevant websites. Subsequently the CD tool kit was supplemented by a dedicated website – http://www.livefoodfishtrade.org. The decision to dispense with written manuals and documentation in favour of a CD comprising Requirement interpretation and best-practice and implementation guidance has greatly improved the ability for distribution and dissemination of the Standard. The integrated CD and website contain the International Standards, responsible practices and implementation guidance for all Requirements, and importantly, includes a comprehensive library of existing materials (best-practice guidelines, manuals and tool kits) for use as instructional guidance. The ‘live’ website will ensure the Standard remains a ‘living document’ and that the issue of the International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish that promotes best practice will remain a salient feature of this industry.

The development process for the live reef food fish trade standard.

June 25, 2008

Figure 8.6

BLBK019-Ward 10:23

179

BLBK019-Ward

180

June 25, 2008

10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

8.6 Implementing the standard 8.6.1 Compliance During the standards development process, concerns were raised that operators and agencies in source countries may hold themselves up as being compliant under an internationally developed ‘code’, on the basis of meeting certain principles when in fact overall, the basic nature and operation of the fishery remained unchanged. This led to improvements in the Standards structure to reflect the holistic nature of the Standard and the obligation for operators and agencies in source countries to adhere to a stepwise process as opposed to piecemeal compliance with some but not all principles (e.g. a demonstration of compliance with principles in the section on Fishing Operations means little without achieving fishery viability, monitoring and management compliance). Further, there is a need to account for the interaction between agents as the product moves along the supply chain. Within the natural resource sector, the ‘chain of custody’ approach to compliance is essential to dealing with the need to satisfy multi-agent criteria. This aspect of ensuring the ‘sustainability’ of LRFF along the supply chain was not specifically addressed during the standards development process, nor was there developed a mechanism for measuring compliance or what might be considered an acceptable level of compliance (i.e. the benchmarking-specific requirements). Options to facilitate assessment of compliance were considered, including the establishment of a ‘trade organisation’ to decide on these issues, and partnering with existing compliance bodies (e.g. MSC and MAC).

8.6.2 Implementation frameworks As previously noted, the purpose of the LRFFT project was to produce a credible and robust International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish. Subsequently, the project team reviewed and considered options for the implementation and use of the LRFFT Standard and possible frameworks under which the LRFFT standard could be used. These included self-declaration by industry members to the LRFFT standard (sometimes known as first-party certification; see Chapter 1); compliance to the LRFFT Standard within a programme operated by a LRFFT trade association (sometimes known as second-party certification); and conventional third-party certification. While the preferred method of ensuring compliance and implementation of the Standard for the LRFFT would be an independent third-party certification programme, the prospect of introducing such a certification programme into the LRFFT would be challenging. The unique characteristics of the LRFFT as a tropical small-scale fishery (discussed above) create significant difficulties for implementing a third-party certification system (Pauly 1997). In addition, the limited institutional and financial capacity to undertake resource assessment and monitoring to manage the fishery,

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish

181

and to achieve compliance and overcome issues such as corruption and the potential for fraudulent reporting are all major difficulties. A number of other limitations and challenges for applying the certification approach to developing-country fisheries have been identified, including:

r the potential for distorting existing practices and livelihoods; r creation of market incentives that favour the export of certified fish; and r the need to establish criteria that are equally achievable for fishers in developing and developed countries (Gardiner & Viswanathan 2004). Nonetheless, certification programmes can be tailored to accommodate such characteristics. For example, community-based certification programmes present one alternative approach for dealing with the small-scale artisanal nature of the LRFFT (Pomeroy 1995, Jayme et al. 2003, Novy-Hildesley & Short 2003). The challenges inherent in introducing a third-party certification programme into the LRRFT are not restricted to the supply end of the market chain. The critical factor that determines the success or failure of any certification scheme is consumer acceptance and participation. Empirical studies have shown that consumers in the US and Europe are willing to pay more for food that is certified as coming from a sustainable source (Wessells et al. 1999, Johnston et al. 2001). Results from these studies suggest, however, that consumers will continue to prefer certified products only while the price premium associated with that product is not excessively large. The response of consumers to ecolabelling schemes varies greatly among regions and countries. Most future expansion in demand for fishery products is anticipated to occur in Asia and Latin America. Traditionally, these consumers were regarded as not very responsive to ecolabelling of fish and fishery products (Gardiner & Viswanathan 2004). However, recent research suggests consumers may be willing to pay a premium for sustainably produced LRFF (Chan et al. 2006). On the supply side, an important question is the extent to which producing a certified sustainable product would increase production costs. In addition to production costs there are downstream costs associated with maintaining the ‘chain of custody’ required to ensure certified commodities are not contaminated with non-certified commodities (Sedjo & Swallow 2002). It can be argued that a price premium paid by consumers may defray these additional costs but this is contingent on the product being sold into a receptive consumer market. Alternatives have been suggested for developing-country fisheries, including labels of geographic origin and fair trade labelling schemes. The latter ensures that artisanal fishers’ livelihoods are maintained and that fishers are rewarded for non-destructive, environmentally selective fishing methods (Gardiner & Viswanathan 2004). The issue of cost of certification has particular relevance in fisheries such as LRFF fisheries, which are mostly artisanal and have complex market chains involving numerous agents and intermediaries (Sadovy et al. 2003). One area of the LRFFT where the project team considered certification could be more immediately feasible was in the mariculture sector. While mariculture is

BLBK019-Ward

182

June 25, 2008

10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

often not conducted in an environmentally responsible manner and is consequently branded as an unsustainable industry, the structure of the LRFF mariculture industry appears to lend itself more easily to a certification framework than does the wildcaught sector. For example, the various stages of culturing LRFF (hatchery, nursery, grow-out and distribution), the proximity of farms to distribution centres, and the generic and replicable production processes all suggest a reasonable likelihood of successful implementation of a certification programme. In order to assess the overall prospects for a certification programme within the LRFFT, a detailed and comprehensive review would need to be undertaken to objectively measure the interest and involvement of industry members, local, national and regional enabling agencies and other stakeholders in establishing an independent third-party certification programme.

8.6.3 Assessing the feasibility of certification A sensible approach to assessing the merits of certification in the LRFFT may be a phased approach that investigates the feasibility of strengthening existing voluntary standards through establishing a prototype certification programme. To assess the feasibility and validity of certification within the LRFFT, the need, the potential and the business viability of such a strategy would need to be considered. Each of these three aspects would need to be reviewed and evaluated in a stepwise process. Under this approach, progress to the subsequent review phase will depend on clearly establishing either the need or potential in the prior phase. If the need, potential and business viability of certification can be clearly established, a comprehensive capacity-building and pilot programme can be undertaken to test the feasibility of certification for both the supply and demand sides of the trade. If, at the completion of either of the need, potential or business viability phases, a clear way forward for certification cannot be established, then an intensive programme of getting the existing voluntary standards more widely adopted, most likely under a second-party certification approach, should be explored. At the end of the capacity-building and pilot-testing programme phase, institutional scenarios for hosting and implementing a future LRFFT certification programme will need to be addressed (Figure 8.7).

8.7 Conclusions The emphasis and importance placed on wide-ranging and inclusive consultation and a willingness to heed stakeholder concerns has proved to be vital in the development of a meaningful Standard that creates a platform for the ongoing efforts to transform the LRFFT. By creating credible, international, multi-stakeholder standards for best practice where none have previously existed, certification can ensure the LRFFT becomes more responsible and sustainable. Certification will allow the industry and market to reject unsustainable, sub-standard practices and products.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish

183

Figure 8.7 The certification feasibility process, including the dissemination of voluntary standards, showing the sequential, stepwise approach.

Sub-standard operators will be forced by the market to either adjust their practices ‘upward’ or lose market support and leave the trade. And further, certification will lead to sustainable industry financing for conservation. Certification will require, among other things: monitoring of reefs and stocks for compliance with sustainability standards; industry documentation of compliance with standards and provision of data to an international trade information system; and management plans and conservation areas for harvested reefs. This means the industry will be required to support monitoring, documentation, and conservation and management of reefs as the normal way of doing business – sustainable selffinancing of reef conservation.

BLBK019-Ward

184

June 25, 2008

10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

Developing countries, and even developed countries, do not have enough funds to create, implement and enforce enough laws and management plans to protect all reefs all the time. Coastal communities with incentives to manage and conserve reefs are the only hope for widespread, ongoing, effective and financially sustainable reef conservation and management. With market incentives and independent certification, coastal communities involved in the LRFFT will have motives for becoming the guardians, stewards and enforcers of management and conservation, often in remote areas rarely visited by the government. Codes of conduct and industry standards can be given more authority when brought under a third-party certification programme. While such certification programmes carry the endorsement of governments, these programmes are usually born out of strategic partnerships between business and environmental groups and are often brokered by conservation-oriented NGOs. The goal of achieving sustainable resource use in the LRFFT may be greatly supported through this incentive-based approach that aims to reward businesses for compliance with an agreed set of principles or standards. The LRFFT Standard makes a significant contribution to this, and provides the platform for the development of a widespread system of certification for the trade.

References Cesar, H.S.J., Warren, K.A., Sadovy, Y., Lau, P., Meijer, S. & Ierland, E.V. (2000) Marine market transformation of the live reef fish food trade in Southeast Asia. In: H.S.J. Cesar (Ed) Collected Essays on the Economics of Coral Reefs, pp. 137–157. CORDIO, Kalmar, Sweden. Chan, N.W.W., Bennett, J. & Johnston, B. (2006) Consumer demand for sustainable wildcaught and cultured live reef food fish. Environmental Management and Development Occasional Paper, #12–2006. Crawford School of Economics, Australian National University, Canberra. Civic Exchange (2001) Collaborative resource management: models for the live reef food fish trade, 31 pp. Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy Hong Kong: Civic Exchange. Civic Exchange, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR. Cochrane, K.L. (2000) Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away? Fish and Fisheries, 1(1), 3–21. Conservation and Community Investment Forum (CCIF). (2002) Analysis of the status of current certification schemes in promoting conservation, 32 pp. Unpublished Report. San Francisco, CA. FAO (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, pp. 41. Rome, Italy. Gardiner, P.R. & Viswanathan, K.K. (2004) Ecolabelling and fisheries management, 44 pp. Studies and Reviews 27. WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. Graham, T.R., Barber, C., Boape, G., Chan, P., Donaldson, T., Fox, C., Nelson, K., McCollough, B., McGilvray, F., Muldoon, G., Nguyen, H., Pomeroy, R., Pratt, V., Salm, R., Smith, A., Why, S., Wicaksono, A. & Yeeting, B. (2001) A collaborative strategy to

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

10:23

Developing an International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish

185

address the live reef food fish trade. Asia Pacific Coastal Marine Program, Report number 0101. The Nature Conservancy, Honolulu, Hawaii. Jayme, K.L., Romero, F.G. & Ingles, J.A. (2003) Community-based certification of the blue crab fishery of the northeastern guimaras strait, negros occidental, Philippines: lessons learned, prospects and directions. Paper presented to ITMEMS. Manila, Philippines, 2 March 2003. Johnston, R.J., Wessells, C.R., Donath, H. & Asche, F. (2001) A contingent choice analysis of ecolabelled seafood comparing consumer preferences in the United States and Norway. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26(1), 20–39. Lucas, S. (2006) History and status of commercial live fish fisheries in California and the United States West Coast. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin, 16, 19–25. Muldoon, G. (2003) The live reef food fishery on Australia’s great barrier reef: case study and implications for development of a voluntary code of conduct of best practices for the live reef food fish trade in the Asia Pacific Region, 60 pp. Unpublished Report. Townsville, Queensland, Australia. Muldoon, G. (2006) Market chain analysis for the trade in live reef food fish. In: B.J. Johnston & B. Yeeting (Eds) Economics and Marketing of Live Reef Fish in the AsiaPacific, pp. 135–154. ACIAR Working Paper No. 60. ACIAR, Canberra, Australia. Muldoon, G. (2007) The live reef fish trade in the Sulu-Sulawesi marine ecoregion: a trade scoping study, 110 pp. Report prepared for WWF. Unpublished report. Townsville, Queensland, Australia. Muldoon, G. & Johnston, W. (2006) A market chain analysis of the trade in live reef food fish. Australasian Agribusiness Review (in review). Novy-Hildesley, J. & Short, K. (2003) Community-based certification: a route to sustainable fisheries. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Eco-labelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About?, pp. 162–175. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Pauly, D. (1997) Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality, marginalization and some implications for fisheries management. In: E.K. Pikitch, D.D. Huppert & M.P. Sissenwine (Eds.) Global Trends: Fisheries Management, pp 40–49. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Peacey, J. (2001) The Marine Stewardship Council fisheries certification program: progress and challenges. Paper presented to the 10th Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, Corvallis, OR, 10–14 July 2000. Petersen, E.H., Muldoon, G. & Johnston, B. (2004) Finding Nemo: estimating import demand for live reef food fish. Paper presented to the 7th Asian Fisheries Forum, Penang, Malaysia, 29 November to 3 December 2004. Pomeroy, R.S. (1995) Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable coastal fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 27(3), 143–162. Roheim, C. & Sutinen, J.G. (2006) Trade and marketplace measures to promote sustainable fishing practices, 48 pp. ICTSD Natural Resources, International Trade and Sustainable Development Series Issue Paper No. 3. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and the High Seas Taskforce, Geneva, Switzerland. Sadovy, Y. (2001) Summary of regional survey of fry/fingerling supply for grouper mariculture in Southeast Asia. Secretariat for the Pacific Community Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin, 8, 22–29.

BLBK019-Ward

186

June 25, 2008

10:23

Seafood Ecolabelling

Sadovy, Y., Donaldson, T., Graham, T.R., McGilvray, F., Muldoon, G.J., Phillips, M.J., Rimmer, M.A., Smith, A. & Yeeting, B. (2003) While Stocks Last The Live Reef Food Fish Trade. ABD Pacific Studies Series. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. Sadovy, Y. & Vincent, A.C.J. (2002) Ecological issues and the trades in live reef fishes. In: P.F. Sale (Ed.) Coral Reef Fishes Dynamics and Diversity in a Complex Ecosystem, pp. 391–420. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Sedjo, R.A. & Swallow S.K. (2002) Voluntary eco-labeling and the price premium. Land Economics, 78(2), 272–284. Tegner, M.J. & Dayton, P.K. (1997) The live fish fishery of California. SPC Secretariat for the Pacific Community Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin, 2, 25–26. Wessells, C.R., Johnston, R.J. & Donath, H. (1999) Assessing consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: the influence of species, certifier and household attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(5), 1084–1089.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

0:30

Chapter 9

Market-Based Mechanisms – Improving Fisheries Management? Duncan Leadbitter

9.1 Introduction Fish have been taken for a variety of reasons over the millennia, and examples of overfishing or other unacceptable impacts can be found in many types of fisheries, such as subsistence, sport and market (Jackson et al. 2001, McPhee et al. 2002, Mullon et al. 2005). However, despite commonly held views, overfishing and other impacts on fisheries have not arisen simply as a consequence of industrialisation of fishing in the recent past (Jackson et al. 2001). Despite these problems, the demand for seafood has grown enormously, placing hitherto unknown demands on resources and, it could be argued, has created the need for new tools to ensure that sustainability is the dominant factor guiding the future use of seafood resources. Traditional approaches to fisheries management have relied on creating a series of rules to constrain the harvest. These rules may be government sanctioned or administered by non-government organisations such as fishing associations, but irrespective of this fact, the intended effect is to control supply of seafood products. The demand side has largely remained unaffected, at least as far as sustainability is concerned, except in an indirect sense when the influence of scarcity and simple market abundance/absence effect on price may have an influence the demand. In terms of active influence on demand, sellers of seafood have always sought to create demand by promotion of some attribute of the seafood product to increase sales. Attempts to directly affect demand for the purposes of influencing sustainability are a relatively recent phenomenon. As will be set out below, the rationale for such intervention is based on the many examples of the failure (partial or total) of supplyside catch constraints. This does not mean that such constraints are valueless, but that demand-side controls may provide additional solutions. Used together, a more effective system can result. Seafood is one of the most highly traded commodities in the world. Supply chains may be long and complex, extending across hemispheres, and thus supply and demand may not be obviously linked. However, as discussed below, the SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

187

BLBK019-Ward

188

May 27, 2008

0:30

Seafood Ecolabelling

establishment of chains of custody that provides explicit links between supply and demand is necessary and feasible irrespective of the nature of the trade routes.

9.2 Trends in seafood trade The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has documented the rapid expansion of international trade in seafood over the past 20 years. The value of global national exports has grown from US$7 billion in 1976 (Josupeit & Franz 2003) to US$58 billion in 2002 (Lem 2004). Net export revenues for developing countries grew from less than US$4 billion to US$15 billion over the same period. Although some nations have always been significant traders of seafood and seafood products, the increase in the past few years has been due to the rapid expansion of catches in the waters of developing countries and the export of seafood to developed countries. About 22 million tonnes of seafood entered the world trade in 1996, which shows an increase of 8 million tonnes since 1976 (Deere 2000). Dommen (1999) estimates that some 40% of the world seafood now enters international trade (compared to 10% of meat; Delgado et al. 2003) and the proportion contributed by developing countries has grown from 43% to 51% over the period 1992 to 2001 (FAO 2007). Most trade is between developed countries and other developed countries, or between developing countries and developed countries (Deere 2000). In 2001 most (74%) seafood was exported to Japan (23%), the US (17%) and the EU (34%) (Vannuccini 2002). The trade between developing countries is dominated (by weight) by fishmeal and fish oil for use in aquaculture. Aquaculture production has grown spectacularly from 15% of world seafood production in 1990 to 29% in 2001. The bulk of this increase has occurred in the People’s Republic of China, and the production is dominated by freshwater fish (Subasinghe et al. 2001). Whilst aquaculture is one of the few primary industries in many countries that is expanding (and is the main hope for satisfying the growing demand for seafood), this growth has not been without significant environmental impacts in some areas (Subasinghe et al. 2001). Co-incident with the increased trade in seafood has been an alarming deterioration in the state of many of the world’s fisheries. Over the past few decades the FAO (2005a) has documented a gradual increase in the number of fisheries listed as overfished (currently 17%), and there is concern that many of those that are currently listed as fully fished (52%) are merely in a state of transition to an overfished status. As global catches have risen (now 82 million tonnes) so too has the area of waters fished. In 1980, the high seas (waters outside of the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) claimed by maritime nations) provided 5% of the world catch. This grew to 11% in 1990 (Deere 2000), thus creating a variety of management and enforcement issues that continue to generate concern, especially in the context of regulating trade.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

0:30

Market-Based Mechanisms

189

The loss of food fish from declining fisheries is only one aspect of concern. Fishing has its own impacts and there is global concern about the effects of fishing on groups of species such as sharks, turtles and seabirds, as well as more general ecosystem alteration (FAO 2001). In coastal areas fishing pressure adds to a wide suite of pressures on waterways (estuaries and rivers) such as pollution, dams, wetland drainage and urban development. Indeed, coastal development is proceeding at such a pace in some countries that the future of many inshore fish stocks is bleak (FAO 2007).

9.3 Impacts of trade on fish and fisheries The world’s nations have broadly agreed that international trade, in general, is good for economic development and that increased trade will result in benefits for people. International trading in seafood products is one of the factors driving increased production and thus increased pressure on fish resources. According to Deere (2000), the expected positive aspects of such trade could include:

r comparative advantage – producer nations can specialise in areas where they have a natural advantage;

r potential to generate higher economic growth which could be allocated to poverty reduction and other beneficial uses;

r reduced prices for consumers as goods/services are sourced from the cheapest producers;

r greater choice for consumers; and r discouraging protectionism, which otherwise can cause environmental damage by encouraging inefficient (i.e. wasteful) resource use. Perhaps not surprisingly there is also a set of counter-arguments:

r governments may not compensate for trade impacts; r trade can promote environmental degradation, including overfishing; r lower costs may be due to weaker laws, i.e. laws may not require sufficient r r r r

investment in management controls; trade can facilitate transport-related pollution; can adversely affect jobs and communities; the international system of trade governance has problems; and food security may be threatened.

Seafood production has also grown as a result of both global population growth and gradual increases in spending power. The growth in per capita consumption is most pronounced in developing countries, especially Asia, whereas growth in developed countries has largely remained static although this may hide a shift to high-value products as incomes have risen.

BLBK019-Ward

190

May 27, 2008

0:30

Seafood Ecolabelling

Technological innovation has been a significant factor in both capture fisheries and aquaculture. For the capture sector, technology has enabled fish to be produced far more efficiently than in the past, resulting in lower costs of production but not necessarily more fish. However, in the aquaculture sector, efficiencies driven by technological innovation have translated into significant reductions in unit prices (Delgado et al. 2003). The declaration of EEZs has been partly credited as creating a shift in trade – developing nations went from being net importers of fish from developed nations in the 1980s to the reverse of this pattern by the late 1990s (Delgado et al. 2003). The impacts have been dramatic – for example, the Japanese catch of seafood has fallen from about 13 million tonnes in 1987 to 7.5 million tonnes in 1995 (Basir et al. 1998) and imports have risen in a corresponding fashion. In recent years the global trade liberalisation agenda has had a marked impact on seafood trade. Many fishery issues such as market access, tariffs, fisheries subsidies, environmental labelling, technical assistance and capacity building, and the relationship between the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) have had an influence on the pressures to produce fish. Trade liberalisation has provided the incentive to catch more fish and earn more from export markets. Opportunities to satisfy the seemingly insatiable demand for quality seafood have been exploited by industries and governments throughout the world. New markets and new products have been created as a result of the increasing and diverse technological capacity to catch, process and transport fish and seafood products (Kurien 2004). For developing countries there is the potential for job creation and increased wealth, and Kurien (2004) documents a number of examples where the increased wealth has been used to benefit local fishing communities, such as in Namibia. However, the ability to catch fish and move them around the world has far outstripped the capacity to properly manage the fisheries. Whilst some authors (Kurien 2004) highlight the ‘uncanny relationship between a fish specie (sic) entering international trade and its depletion’ others (Schmidt 2003) argue that it is the absence of good management which is at fault, not the destination for the fish products. The financial benefits of enhanced trade obviously provides added incentives for increased catches, and to ignore such incentives when designing catch controls would certainly pose a threat to stocks. Equally, to curtail trade as an alternative to good fisheries management would be to unnecessarily deny opportunities. There is great potential for trade to be a positive benefit for fishing nations, but it is hampered by the fact that the regulatory framework at the international level is still evolving. Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) have sought to strengthen reporting and catch controls, and while these have not yet been tested in the WTO they are likely to be in compliance (Tarasofsky 2003). In contrast, the lack of a robust regulatory framework is a threat to trade because there is a lack of clarity and certainty that accompanies such a regime, including the increased risks of illegal fishing.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

0:30

Market-Based Mechanisms

191

Trade distortion measures such as tariffs and subsidies are generally viewed as a threat to trade although there is much discussion over the impacts of some types of fishery subsidies. As tariffs or subsidies are reduced there will be opportunities for the exporters of seafood products to access new markets. For example, the reductions in EU tariffs for live Australian rock lobster enabled additional access to 1500 tonnes of this product in the EU (Edwards 2004). However, like all trade measures, reductions in tariffs and subsidies need to be accompanied by quality management regimes for the fish stocks to ensure that the changes in the trade environment do not have unintended negative consequences for the seafood stocks. The discussion above is not to make the case that trade itself is the major source of production pressures and thus the main source of overfishing and environmental damage. Such pressures have existed for many years and would continue even in the absence of trade. However, it serves to illustrate the growing number of issues that trade creates, such as increasingly long supply chains that create ever-more tenuous connections between source and supply, and the growth in supply from nations with inadequately developed supply-side fisheries management systems and the increasing opportunities for circumvention of their laws.

9.4 Illegal fishing – a compelling issue Environmental crime, including illegal dumping, use of banned substances, and the take and trade of plants and animals that are either protected or illegally supplied is one of the fastest growing areas of organised crime in the world (Hayman & Brack 2002, Schmidt 2004). Whilst illegal fishing is rarely described as being a crime per se, the international nature of Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing and the documented links between some types of fishing activities and other, more serious crimes such as drug trafficking, places the illegal trade in some species into a whole new arena. Due to the nature of this trade, detailed information on impacts is even harder to obtain than that from legitimate trade. However, if the fishing activities are ‘subsidised’ or are simply a front for other, more lucrative activities such as drug or people smuggling, then the cost structure of fishing is even further distorted. The term IUU fishing refers to fishing which occurs outside of established laws (illegal), occurs in areas where there are no laws, such as on the High Seas (unregulated) or where no record of catches is kept (unreported). The obvious concern is that information on the amount of fish extracted from a stock is unaccounted for within the management system, thus increasing the likelihood of overfishing. However, there are also concerns about fishing activities affecting sensitive species of the marine ecosystem (such as albatrosses). From a trade perspective, vessels that engage in IUU fishing have lower production costs and thus seafood products from such vessels can undermine legitimate products in the marketplace (Agnew & Barnes 2004). For example, work in Japan suggests that, in the case of tuna, the production costs for IUU vessels are 30% lower than those for legitimate fishing vessels (OECD 2003).

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

192

0:30

Seafood Ecolabelling

Although IUU fishing has always occurred, it has emerged as one of the major issues facing fish stocks and other components of the marine environment in recent years. Major efforts, such as the FAO’s International Plan of Action, have implemented measures to control IUU fishing, with some limited success. In the case of Patagonian toothfish, the measures have included increased enforcement and better catch documentation via a scheme operated by the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). The catch documentation measure dovetails into a growing demand for much more rigorous and complete information about the source and identity of seafood products for public health and consumer information reasons (see below with respect to ecolabelling). However, the system operated by CCAMLR has a number of crucial limitations (Lack & Sant 2001) that create loopholes for illegal operators. For example, a number of nations have declined to participate in the Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS), and it only applies to catches taken in the area covered by CCAMLR. The perpetrators of environmental crime may come from any country. But there is little doubt that ineffective legal regimes and inadequate capacity to monitor and enforce the law, a situation more common in developing countries, mean that criminals are more likely to base their operations in such countries or use such countries as a channel for illegally sourced seafood products.

9.5 The private sector and demand control The regime that facilitates and controls the production and trade in fisheries products is of great interest to the private sector for obvious reasons. Not only does the system provide the framework in which commerce can operate, but it presents a wide variety of incentives and hurdles which can affect the viability and profitability of commercial activities. In the same manner as governments move to control areas of market failure, the private sector creates systems to compensate for perceived or real inadequacies in government control, and to satisfy consumer demand. The motivations for the involvement of non-government organisations (both business and not-for-profit groups) in the supply of seafood products are many and varied. Advocacy NGOs (non-government organisations) may seek to ensure sustainable use, protect biodiversity, and in some cases, promote equity in the allocation of resources so that livelihoods are protected and the living conditions of fishing communities are improved. For business NGOs, there is an interest in maintaining a sustainable seafood supply from a purely commercial perspective, but there are additional motivations that may include:

r protecting access to the resource – without access to fish resources (or suitable sites in the case of aquaculture) there is no seafood business;

r protecting an allocated share of the resource – there are growing pressures in many countries on the level of resource allocation to the commercial sector, and between the commercial and recreational fishing sectors;

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

0:30

Market-Based Mechanisms

193

r reducing the impacts of illegal fishing – illegal fishing may make legal fishing unprofitable and put long-term sustainability at risk; and

r opening new markets – changing tastes, affluence and consumer expectations create new market opportunities that can be developed. The non-government private sector has become increasingly involved in the creation of novel mechanisms for controlling demand and supply in favour of sustainability. Although some mechanisms, such as community-based rules governing fishing activities, have been around for decades, and some for centuries, the creation of long-distance supply chains has forced the development of some creative initiatives. These include the establishment of collaboration mechanisms amongst NGOs, labelling schemes, certification for traceability and other forms of sustainability incentives.

9.5.1 Catch tracking and identification One mechanism for controlling IUU fishing is to ensure that fish products properly identify the species content and the area of production. Whilst there have been widespread moves to address these needs for hygiene and food safety purposes (see, e.g. OECD 2004), this has not been the case for catch control, although, as mentioned above, some systems have been put in place by RFMOs. The threat of IUU fishing to the economic health of legitimate fishing activities has been a growing source of concern to some industry groups and, as a result of frustration with the lack of government controls, alternative mechanisms for addressing urgent issues have been developed. Some seafood ecolabelling schemes (such as those discussed below) have catch traceability incorporated as a central component of their system, to reassure customers and ensure the integrity of their brands. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) requires those that use the MSC logo to have in place a chain-of-custody certificate to verify that the product bearing the logo has come from an MSC-certified fishery. In the case of toothfish from the MSC-certified fishery around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, an auditable, non-government, traceability system was created to provide assurance for consumers that the toothfish was supplied from a legal and well-managed source. Organisation for the promotion of responsible tuna fishing (OPRT) The OPRT was established by tuna fishing interests in Japan in 2000 to address the growth of trade in black market tuna and to provide a vehicle for reducing excess capacity in tuna fleets (www.oprt.or.jp). The number of participating nations has grown to nine and OPRT now also includes members from the post-harvest sector and a consumer organisation. The OPRT has brokered agreements that have resulted in the removal of thousands of tonnes of fishing capacity from participating fisheries.

BLBK019-Ward

194

May 27, 2008

0:30

Seafood Ecolabelling

The OPRT operates a simple labelling system which ensures that tuna entering Japan are assured to have been caught by legally licenced vessels. It also organises and analyses data collected in Japanese markets and makes information about tunas available to the public and other interested parties. Coalition of legal toothfish operators (COLTO) The plight of the Patagonian toothfish has become widely known as a result of the rampant IUU fishing which has occurred in the waters of the Southern Ocean (www.colto.org). Although CCAMLR has put in place a mechanism for documenting catches of the two species of toothfish (the Dissostichus Catch Documentation Scheme – DCDS) there remains significant concern about the ability of CCAMLR and member nations to stem the illegal toothfish catch. Several years ago the concern of some legal toothfish operators and environment groups resulted in the creation of ISOFISH, the role of which was to identify and publicly report on illegal fishing in the Southern Ocean (www.tct.org.au/link.htm). Although ISOFISH is no longer operational, its success was critical to the formation of COLTO and, ultimately, to some limited industry support for a proposed listing of Patagonian toothfish on the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in recognition of the need for a trade control scheme that had a wider membership and more comprehensive scope than that operated by CCAMLR. TRAFFIC and other environmental groups TRAFFIC (www.traffic.org) is one of a number of non-government environmental groups that research and monitor trade in fisheries (as well as other plant and animal products, most of which are listed by CITES). Although it is heavily involved in terrestrial plants and animals, TRAFFIC has become increasingly involved in fisheries issues in some high-profile fish species such as Patagonian toothfish (Lack & Sant 2001) and tunas (Hayes 1997), especially in the Oceania region. TRAFFIC operates by documenting trade flows and providing this information to authorities and other interested parties that may not have their own capacity to gather the information to enable effective control. This is especially useful for developing countries which commonly do not have adequate systems in place to monitor and control trade. Government–NGO alliances Trade issues also create alliances between the government and non-government sectors. For example, the specific issue of the trade in live fish sourced from tropical coral reefs is of concern in Pacific countries due to the serious decline in target species and the habitat damage caused by the use of dynamite and chemical poisons as fishing tools (Sadovy et al. 2003). The diffuse nature of this trade, coupled with

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

0:30

Market-Based Mechanisms

195

the very limited record-keeping in many of the nations hosting this form of fishing, has made control, even via trade measures, almost impossible. Concern over this trade has resulted in collaboration between government agencies (Queensland Department of Primary Industries), a regional management organisation (Secretariat of the Pacific Community) and environment groups (International Marinelife Alliance and The Nature Conservancy) (Sadovy et al. 2003). This coalition may be the first step towards a multilateral agreement that results in the legal and administrative measures, possibly including ecolabelling, that are required to properly control trade and conserve affected fish stocks.

9.5.2 Marketplace identification and the role of consumers Although it has been in use for decades, ecolabelling was formally recognised as a valuable tool in natural resource management at the World Summit in Brazil in 1992. Market-based incentives for environmentally beneficial behaviour were seen as making a potentially important contribution to the push for sustainable development (Wessells et al. 2001). The potential value of ecolabelling relies on there being sufficient numbers of well-informed and motivated consumers who are prepared to actively select ecolabelled products in preference to others. Surveys in a number of countries (see, e.g., Aslin & Byron 2003, for Australia) reveal concern amongst the public about the status of fisheries and a stated preference for products bearing an ecolabel (and see Chapter 2). Wild-harvest labels The number of ecolabels for wild-harvest fisheries remains small but is slowly increasing. The oldest and best known is the Dolphin Friendly logo that was created by a US-based environment group, Earth Island Institute (EII), to identify tunas which had been taken without harm to dolphins (Teisl et al. 2002, Brown 2005). This system is global in scope but a regional label, created by governments involved in tuna fisheries in the eastern tropical Pacific, has been launched in recent years (www.iattc.org/IDCPEWG.htm). The Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) has a different standard to that operated by the EII. There is also a ‘Flipper Seal of Approval’ programme operated by the USbased wildlife conservation group Earthtrust. This programme (involving a number of employees of the EII) claims a greater emphasis on saving dolphins than merely being ‘dolphin safe’ (and see Chapter 10). Other species/issue-specific programmes include the Turtle Safe Label, also created by the EII, which was designed to identify prawns (shrimp) that have been taken by trawlers that use Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in their nets. This label was discontinued in 2001 due to funding problems. In 2003 a Sturgeon Stewardship Council (SSC) was created by the caviar industry and the International Wildlife Management

BLBK019-Ward

196

May 27, 2008

0:30

Seafood Ecolabelling

Consortium (IWMC) World Conservation Trust (a sustainable-use oriented NGO) in response to environmental NGO campaigns for a ban on the trade in caviar (and see Chapter 7). Little information is currently available on how the SSC operates, and the website is now inactive. The Maine (USA) Lobster Council operates a logo that is available to all lobster fishers as the council believes that all its products are taken in an environmentally friendly manner (www.lobstersfrommaine.com). Indeed, a growing number of companies and industry groups are making self-claims about sustainability. Concern over wider aspects of fisheries impacts than just on dolphins has resulted in the creation of more comprehensive ecolabelling programmes. The MSC is an international accreditation and standard-setting body established to promote good fisheries management via certification and labelling (Phillips et al. 2003, and see Chapter 4). The MSC’s Principles and Criteria give equal weight to issues surrounding stock sustainability, acceptable environmental impact and effective management, and the MSC ecolabel represents a significant move beyond singleissue labels. A number of other fisheries ecolabelling programmes have been proposed or developed in recent years. Probably the simplest is operated by the Friend of the Sea, based in Italy (www.friendofthesea.org). Until recently, this programme allowed a candidate fishery to download a self-assessment form from the internet to determine if the Friend of the Sea logo can be used. Another programme was put forward by the Denmark-based Danish Society for a Living Sea but there has been little development since it was first proposed in 2000 (www.levendehav.dk/politik/ oekoligiske fisk/regler-for-fiskeri.htm). Rigorous programmes have also been proposed by government agencies. For example, the Nordic Group of countries has been developing a labelling programme for fisheries for a number of years (Nordic Technical Working Group on Ecolabelling Criteria 2000). The criteria for labelling and the operation of the programme are suited to fisheries from member countries. In Sweden, the Association for Control of Organic Production (KRAV) has developed, with the support of the national board of fisheries, a label and criteria for sustainable fisheries (arkiv.krav.se/arkiv/internationellt/draft2–0.pdf). More recently, the German organic standard owner, Naturland, has created a standard for wild-harvest fisheries (www.naturland.de), and the Japan Fisheries Association has announced that it will do the same (and see Chapter 1). The rapid growth in seafood labels in recent years has resulted in pressure by some nations on the FAO, which has now developed international guidelines for ecolabelling of wild caught seafood (FAO 2005b, and see Chapter 3). At this time, the MSC is the only seafood ecolabelling programme that appears to fully comply with the FAO guidelines but there is no requirement for others to similarly conform. Furthermore, despite the existence of these guidelines there is currently no mechanism for evaluating and enforcing compliance by the range of wild-harvest labelling programmes. This is of concern for the MSC and those that may wish to

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

0:30

Market-Based Mechanisms

197

comply because it creates costs that other programmes do not have to bear, and it also has the potential to damage the overall market if some labels are not based on independent, science-based information. Rising concern over the growing scale and impacts of recreational (sport) fishing (McPhee et al. 2002) is also forcing change in that sector. In Australia, the industry’s peak body (RecFish Australia) has created an accreditation for fishing tournaments (Anon 2006). Although it is a second-party system (see Chapter 1), its creation is an acknowledgement that more needs to be done to manage recreational fishing impacts, even though at present the accreditation system is limited to fishing tournaments. Aquaculture labels Ecolabels for aquaculture products have been developed in a number of countries, primarily by organisations that have an involvement in organic farming. Programmes can be found in Germany (Naturland e.V – www.naturland.de), Australia (National Association for Sustainable Agriculture, www.nasaa.com.au), Japan (Alter Trade – www.altertrade.co.jp), New Zealand (Bio-Gro, www.bio-gro.co.nz), and Switzerland (BIO-Suisse – www.bio-suisse.ch), amongst many others (and see Chapters 1, 5 and 16). These programmes are part of a wide and well-organised network of organisations that are well established because of their long involvement in organic agriculture. Although the standards vary to some degree there is generally a focus on seafood quality (especially contamination) and animal husbandry, as well as the environmental impacts of farming. The focus on contamination and animal husbandry arise directly out of the experience gained in land-based farming. There are several systems specifically established to focus on aquaculture sustainability issues such as Hong Kong Fish Farm Accreditation Scheme (www.hkaffs.org), the SIGES system established by Salmon Chile (www.sigessalmonchile.com) and the Aquaculture Certification Council (www.aquaculturecertification.org), based in the United States (see Chapter 5). In addition, the Chilean Government is planning to establish a certification system aimed at ensuring compliance with environmental regulations for aquaculture producers (including salmon) (A. Brown, personal communication). There is also considerable interest in Asia in the establishment of systems for market purposes, and the FAO’s regional office in Bangkok is co-ordinating rounds of discussions (S. Funge-Smith, personal communication)

9.6 Issues associated with seafood ecolabelling Responses to the rise of seafood ecolabels have been mixed. Leadbitter et al. (2006) reviews some of the commentary that accompanied the development of the MSC. Additional commentary can be found in the following chapters, and in Allison

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

198

0:30

Seafood Ecolabelling

(2001), Heyes and Maxwell (2003), Gale and Haward (2004), Hall (2004), Skinner et al. (2004), Tully (2004), Gulbrandsen (2005, 2006), Ponte (2006), and Jacquet and Pauly (2007). In this debate, the developing countries have raised considerable opposition to seafood ecolabelling. Gardiner and Viswanathan (2004) provide a detailed analysis and identify five areas of concern:

r legitimacy and credibility; r mismatch between certification requirements and the realities of tropical fisheries;

r potential distortions to existing practices and livelihoods; r equity and feasibility; and r perceived barriers to trade. Most of these issues are underpinned by matters related to cost and the technical capacity to manage/control the fisheries in developing countries. The criteria and assessment systems used to evaluate fisheries for the purposes of ecolabelling are usually evidence based. This means that, in the absence of even rudimentary catch reporting systems, there is little chance of developing country fisheries meeting even the lower standards of the more generous ecolabelling systems. Whereas the ecolabelling systems have become a target for criticism, the fundamental issue of inadequate fisheries management remains the basic problem in many of the developing countries. As ecolabelling (and other forms of advice to consumers) grows in popularity so too have concerns about the legitimacy of the assessment systems that underpin them. In the case of wild-harvest assessments, Leadbitter and Ward (2007) reviewed the attributes of a range of systems that have been designed to provide advice about the status of fisheries. Their analysis found a great deal of variability in the scope and robustness of the assessment systems and they proposed a series of criteria for guiding the further development of such systems. The robustness of the assessment systems is crucial, given that assessments can have a major impact in the marketplace, and there is a risk of economic and social harm to industries if they are wrongly accused of poor practices or falsely awarded certificates of sustainability.

9.7 Sourcing policies – retailers and the food trade Various retailers of seafood have sought to either highlight sustainably caught fish or remove those deemed to be unacceptable for environmental reasons from their sales portfolios (see Box 9.1). These moves have been driven by an increasing commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by individuals and businesses in the private sector. By refusing to sell seafood products deemed to be environmentally unsound, these entities believe that they can put pressure on the seafood industry and fishery managers to upgrade fisheries management.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

0:30

Market-Based Mechanisms

Box 9.1

199

CSR Crosses Cultures – Wal-Mart and Aeon

US-based Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the world and thus creates a huge demand for all types of natural resources, including seafood. Over the years it has positioned itself at the budget end of the market and has created great controversy amongst labour market activists, amongst others. Over the past 2 years WalMart has sought to analyse where improvements in managing the impacts of its operations can be made. The result has been a far-reaching commitment to the management of various activities such as waste disposal, energy use and sustainable procurement. With respect to seafood, Wal-Mart has made an ambitious commitment to only supply wild-harvest seafood products from fisheries certified to the MSC Standard. This commitment, scheduled to be implemented over a 5-year period, includes the placing of the MSC label on existing seafood products from MSC certified fisheries, a programme to encourage suitable candidate fisheries to seek certification and a programme to work with other supply fisheries that may not meet the MSC Standard to make the necessary changes to improve sustainability. Across the Pacific, Aeon is Japan’s largest retailer and it has had a long commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility. In July 2006, Aeon committed itself to introducing a range of MSC-labelled products as part of its GreenEye brand, and ten MSC-labelled products were released for sale in December 2006. Although it is too early to gauge the results of this move, the primary reason for Aeon’s decision is that the MSC complements the brand image created for GreenEye. Also, the chain-of-custody certification system provides the sort of assurances Aeon consumers are looking for when purchasing food.

One of the early initiatives in this field was the multinational fish supplier, Unilever, which not only established the MSC (in conjunction with WWF) but also has its own in-house Sustainable Fish Initiative to guide seafood sourcing where fish supplies had not been assessed against the MSC Standard. More recently, Whole Foods Market in the US has made significant commitments to procuring seafood from sustainable sources either by supporting appropriately labelled seafood, removing products deemed as unacceptable (Chilean Sea Bass – also known as Patagonian toothfish) from sale and informing consumers. Similar policies have been put in place by Co-op and Migros supermarkets in Switzerland and by Sainsbury’s in the UK. Some of the retailers generate their own policies whereas others use external advisors. For example, Co-op advises its seafood purchasers to select MSC-labelled products if they are available, whereas the US-based retailer Ahold makes use of an evaluation system developed by the New England Aquarium and implemented as ChoiceCatch (see Chapter 16).

BLBK019-Ward

200

May 27, 2008

0:30

Seafood Ecolabelling

At the smaller end of the supply scale, many specialist suppliers of sustainable seafood, such as EcoFish in the US, also have procurement policies that exclude species deemed unacceptable. Influential individuals involved in the food trade are also having an influence. In Australia the UK and the US, well-known food identities such as celebrity chefs are using their positions of influence in the media to promote their views about sustainable seafood. The current growth in the seafood choices movement appears to be exponential. As this chapter goes to press a new initiative to promote bycatch (seabirds and turtles) friendly tuna is underway in the Pacific, co-ordinated by the Blue Ocean Institute (E. Gilman, personal communication). The tuna initiative involves the catching sector, retailers and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (US). In Australia, a group of restaurants and the Australian Conservation Foundation have announced an intention to work with Ocean Wise, a sustainable seafood initiative of the Vancouver Aquarium, Canada. Ocean Wise will provide guidance on sustainable choices for restaurant menus and follows similar initiatives in the US (New England Aquarium – see Chapter 16; and Monterey Bay Aquarium – see Chapter 17). The views of developing countries on these sorts of initiatives are unknown. Unlike ecolabel programmes, some of which at least try to integrate into globally recognised systems (such as the International Accreditation Forum, International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance, and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements), there is rarely any co-ordination amongst the perspectives of developing countries (with the possible exception of the Seafood Choices movement in the US and Europe) due to commercial competition. Thus although the CSR choices by individual companies may be having an impact on seafood trade, the responses of developing countries are difficult to determine.

9.8 Species bans and advisory cards Curbing trade by stifling demand has also been an approach pursued by environmental groups. Arguably one of the first campaigns run in this regard was the Give Swordfish a Break campaign (see Chapter 7). This campaign dealt primarily with swordfish caught in the Atlantic but may have had impacts on swordfish entering the US from other areas as well. The overall effectiveness of such campaigns is unknown due to lack of evaluation (Jacquet & Pauly 2007) but may be detectable in certain cases (e.g. Give Swordfish a Break campaign and the MSC; Anon 2005). Possibly the major problem of such approaches is their indiscriminate nature. For example, there are well-managed stocks of toothfish as demonstrated by the certification of the South Georgia stock to the MSC standard. However, the cards and ban campaigns do not differentiate between poorly managed and well-managed stocks of toothfish. A more widespread approach to curbing demand has been through the production of advisory documents for consumers (see, e.g., Lee 2001, and Chapters 18 and

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

0:30

Market-Based Mechanisms

201

19). These documents are often summarised on wallet-sized cards that list common seafood species and allocates each to one of three, colour-coded (green, amber and red) categories – ‘eat’, ‘eat with caution’ and ‘don’t eat’. The criteria used by the groups for allocating species to a category are generally quite variable and the level of consultation and transparency involved in the preparation of such documents is generally low. Furthermore, the standards used by such schemes are variable between them. The New Zealand Best Fish Guide (see Chapter 18) is based on a well-defined set of criteria, but allocated no fish to the ‘eat’ category because of the high standard set by the criteria – despite New Zealand’s global reputation for good fisheries management. Such approaches tend to undermine what could otherwise be useful contributions by establishing competing systems for assessment and providing competing recommendations to consumers.

9.9 Threats and opportunities A group of respected authors (Worm et al. 2006) recently made a sensational claim that, if there is no major change to existing fishing policies and practices, all the world’s fish stocks will have collapsed by 2048. The claim precipitated a wide variety of responses including the important observation that this was only a potential result if nothing at all was done to remedy overfishing and habitat destruction. These authors reiterated various calls in both the scientific literature and the popular media for a ‘regime shift’ away from the traditional approaches to fisheries management that are the backbone of the current quest for sustainability. In questioning the value of demand-side initiatives such as ecolabelling, Jacquet and Pauly (2007) suggest a return to traditional advocacy and regulation. Whilst such approaches remain crucial to facilitating moves towards sustainable use it seems unwise to not encourage additional sources of pressure towards sustainability, especially where the private sector may be able to take actions in areas where governments cannot. The view that only governments can and should be involved in ensuring sustainability disempowers a large number of individuals and entities who may not have the time, skills or inclination to become lobbyists. The rise of the private and non-government sector involvement in seafood demand issues parallels both the increase in trade and the rising concern over the state of world fisheries. The scale of production and trade has clearly overwhelmed the capacities of the majority of nations to exercise sufficient control and as a result a variety of responses have evolved to try and address some of the many gaps. The private sector is perceiving value in diversifying its involvement in the seafood trade beyond its more traditional activities such as production, processing, distribution and service delivery. Private NGOs have moved well beyond traditional advocacy and are actively engaged in campaigns to manipulate the seafood market (e.g. the Seafood Choice campaigns operating in the US and Europe; Chapter 7). Opportunities created by new markets (such as the developing interest in

BLBK019-Ward

202

May 27, 2008

0:30

Seafood Ecolabelling

ecolabelled products), new mechanisms for gathering and distributing information, and new mechanisms for influencing trade (e.g. product tracking) are opening up as the supply and demand for seafood products expands. The number, scope and country spread of market-based attempts to influence consumer choice seem certain to increase, especially in developed countries. Card systems are cheap and easy to produce, but although they may reach a lot of people there is little evidence that they are effective. Certification and labelling, whilst more expensive, have greater credibility in the marketplace and seems more likely to exert some control specifically through their impacts on trade. Sustainable-use initiatives of all types may also have negative effects, at least from the perspective of some producers. For example, influencing consumers to substitute one species for another provides a mechanism for shifting consumer pressure without having to resort to pressure on consumers to either reduce seafood consumption or not eat seafood at all (as suggested by Jacquet & Pauly 2007). Whilst there is little independently documented evidence to date that the focus on consumer choice and seafood has had a widespread effect on consumption patterns and thus, by extension, trade, it may simply be that it is too early to say. It may also be that there is too much conflicting advice available and some consumers may be confused, and respond to many different messages. Nonetheless, there are some clear points of agreement between all the card systems – orange roughy and southern bluefin tuna are always on the ‘don’t eat’ lists – with consequent negative effects for producers of these species. The purchasing power of major supermarket chains may prove to be influential, even across continents. However, the supermarkets are very competitive and price sensitive, and there will always be a balance between profitability and market positioning and the extent of CSR. There is a risk that there may be some unintended casualties of all these initiatives. Small-scale fisheries that do not have the resources to fight unfair requirements or find new markets may find themselves at a significant disadvantage even though they may be fishing sustainably. The various certification and card programmes need to recognise the potential for such collateral damage and put in place measures to reduce the risks. Such measures include making their assessment programmes more accessible, generally by reducing costs at the input end, and working at the market end to ensure that the retail sector provides suitable support to small-scale fisheries and producers.

9.10 Summary and conclusions The current state of world fisheries and the projected trajectory if nothing is done (Worm et al. 2006) is a source of concern to all those involved in the production and consumption of seafood as well as those with an interest in the maintenance of aquatic biodiversity. Responses to the issues have run the gamut of better science,

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

0:30

Market-Based Mechanisms

203

tighter laws and enforcement, clearer allocation of rights, and better education and training, amongst many others. The involvement of private sector players in the marketplace has grown rapidly in the past 10 years and reflects the worldwide trend to providing better incentives for those that seek long-term sustainability in a variety of human endeavours that affect the environment. A number of mechanisms for facilitating private sector involvement in the seafood marketplace have evolved, and they range from traditional advocacy by NGOs, the distribution of seafood advisory cards, sustainable seafood procurement policies by retailers and ecolabelling. There are no independent mechanisms for evaluating the success or otherwise of the various programmes within each of these categories, and it is difficult to provide any clear recommendations for the best pathway forward. However, there are some important criteria that can be derived from the FAO’s guidelines for seafood ecolabelling that could be more generally applied. Expectations about transparency, accountability and science-based decision making in market-based systems are relevant to card programmes as well as all other approaches. Perhaps most importantly, as the various systems are implemented in the marketplace, there is a need for an evaluation mechanism to ensure that a continued trajectory towards sustainable use is maintained and that the potential for unintended negative impacts on well-intentioned players in the fishing industry is minimised.

References Agnew, D. & Barnes, C.T. (2004) Economic aspects and drivers of IUU fishing: building a framework. In: Fish Piracy: Combating Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. OECD Fisheries Committee, OECD Publishing, Paris. Allison, E.H. (2001) Big laws, small catches: global ocean governance and the fisheries crisis. Journal of International Development, 13, 933–950. Anon (2005) Seafood choices evaluation. Unpublished report prepared for the David and Lucile Packard Foundation by the Bridgespan Group, Boston, MA. Anon (2006). RECS move to accredit. R&D News 14(2). Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, Australia. Aslin, H.J. & Byron, I.G. (2003) Community perceptions of fishing: implication for industry image, marketing and sustainability. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia. Basir, A., Pawiro, S. & Ferdouse, F. (1998) The Japanese seafood market, Vol. 56. Globefish Research Programme, FAO Globefish, Rome, Italy. Brown, J. (2005) An account of the dolphin safe tuna issue in the UK. Marine Policy, 29, 39–46. Deere, C. (2000) Net Gains: Linking Fisheries Management, International Trade and Sustainable Development. IUCN, Washington, DC, USA. Delgado, C.L., Wada, N., Rosegrant, F.W., Meijer, S. & Ahmed, M. (2003) Fish to 2020 – supply and demand in changing global markets. Technical Report No. 2, World Fish Centre, Penang, Malaysia.

BLBK019-Ward

204

May 27, 2008

0:30

Seafood Ecolabelling

Dommen, C. (1999) Fish for thought – fisheries, international trade and sustainable development. Natural Resources, International trade and Sustainable Development Series, No. 1. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and IUCN, Geneva, Switzerland. Edwards, R. (2004) Export markets for Australian seafood: critical issues and future growth. Outlook 2004, Canberra, Australia. FAO (2001) Report of the Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Marine Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO (2005a) Review of the state of world marine fisheries resources. Food and Agriculture Organization, Fisheries Technical Report Paper No. 457, Rome, Italy, 2002. FAO (2005b) Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/a0116t/a0116t00.pdf [accessed on May 2007]. FAO (2007) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome, Italy. Gale, F. & Haward, M. (2004) Public accountability in private regulation: contrasting models of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, University of Adelaide, 29 September–1 October 2004. Gardiner, P.R. & Viswanathan, K.K. (2004) Ecolabelling and fisheries management. World Fish Centre Studies and Reviews 27, Penang, Malaysia. Gulbrandsen, L. (2005). Creating markets for eco-labeling: are consumers insignificant? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 477–489. Gulbrandsen, L. (2006) Mark of sustainability? Challenges for fisheries and forestry ecolabeling. Environment, 47, 8–23. Hall, S. (2004) Setting environmental standards for eco-labels and training dolphins are not so different. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 14, 437–438. Hayes, E.E. (1997) A review of the southern bluefin tuna fishery: implications for ecologically sustainable development. A TRAFFIC Oceania Report, Sydney, Australia. Hayman, G. & Brack, D. (2002) Environmental crime: the nature and control of environmental black markets. Royal Institute of International Affairs, Sustainable Development Program, Workshop Report, London, UK. Heyes, A.G. & Maxwell, J.W. (2003) Private vs public regulation: political economy of the international environment. Royal Holloway University of London, Discussion Paper Series, 2003–2005. Jackson, J.B.C, Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K.A., Botsford, L.W., Bourgue, B.J, Bradbury, R.H., Cook, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J.A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.B., Lenihan, J.S., Pandolfi, J.M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J. & Warner, R.R. (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293, 629–638. Jacquet, J.L. & Pauly, D. (2007) The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries. Marine Policy, 31, 308–313. Josupeit, H. & Franz, N. (2003) Demand and fish trade. FAO Rio Expert Consultation on Fish Trade, FAO, Rome, Italy.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

0:30

Market-Based Mechanisms

205

Kurien, J. (2004) Fish trade for the people: toward understanding the relationship between international fish trade and food security. Report of the study on the impact of international trade in fishery products on food security conducted jointly by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, FAO, Rome, Italy. Lack, M. & Sant, G. (2001) Patagonian toothfish: are conservation and trade measures working? TRAFFIC Bulletin Vol. 19, No. 1. Leadbitter, D., Gomez, G. & McGilvray, F. (2006) Sustainable fisheries and East Asian seas: can the private sector play a role? Ocean and Coastal Management, 49, 662–675. Leadbitter, D. & Ward, T. (2007) An evaluation of systems for the integrated assessment of capture fisheries. Marine Policy, 31, 458–469. Lee, M. (2001) Seafood Lovers Almanac. Living Oceans Program, National Audubon Society, Washington, DC. Lem, A. (2004) WTO trade rules with an update on the Doha round negotiations and a short reference to anti-dumping actions and the shrimp case. World Aquaculture Society Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1–5 March 2004. McPhee, D., Leadbitter, D. & Skilleter, G.A. (2002) Swallowing the bait: is recreational fishing in Australia ecologically sustainable? Pacific Conservation Biology, 8, 40–51. Mullon, C., Freon, P. & Cury, P. (2005) The dynamics of collapse in world fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 6, 111–120. Nordic Technical Working Group on Fisheries Ecolabelling Criteria (2000) An arrangement for the voluntary certification of products of sustainable fishing. Final Report, Copenhagen, Denmark. OECD (2003) Liberalising fisheries markets: scope and effects. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France. OECD (2004) Review of fisheries in OECD countries: country statistics 2000–2002. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France. Phillips, B., Ward, T. & Chaffee C. (Eds) (2003) Eco-Labelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Ponte, S. (2006) Ecolabels and fish trade: Marine Stewardship Council certification of the South African hake fishery. TRALAC Working Paper No. 9. Trade Law Center for Southern Africa. Sadovy, Y.J., Donaldson, T.J., Graham, T.J., McGilvray, F., Muldoon, G.J., Phillips, M.J., Rimmer, M.A., Smith, A. & Yeeting, B. (2003) While stocks last: the live reef food fish trade. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. Schmidt, C.-C. (2003) Globalisation, industry structure, market power and impact on fish trade: opportunities and challenges for developed countries. In: Industry and Expert Consultation on International Trade, FAO Consultation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–5 December 2003. Schmidt, C.W. (2004) Environmental crimes – profiting at the earth’s expense. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112, A96–A103. Skinner, E., Font, X. & Sanabria, R. (2004) Does stewardship travel well? Benchmarking accreditation and certification. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11, 121–132. Subasinghe, R.P., Bueno, P.B., Phillips, M.J., Hough, C., McGladdery, S.E. & Arthur, J.R. (2001) Aquaculture in the third millenium.In: Technical Proceedings of the Conference

BLBK019-Ward

206

May 27, 2008

0:30

Seafood Ecolabelling

on Aquaculture in the Third Millenium, FAO, NACAP and Department of Fisheries, Thailand, 20–25 February 2001. Tarasofsky, R. (2003) Regional Fisheries Organisations and the Worth Trade Organisation: Compatibility or Conflict? TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK. Teisl, M.F., Roe, B. & Hicks, R.L. (2002) Can a label tune a market? Evidence from dolphin safe labelling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Marketing, 43, 339–359. Tully, S. (2004) Access to justice within the sustainable development self governance model. London School of Economics and Political Science Discussion Paper No. 21, London, UK. Wessells, C.R., Cochrane, K., Deere, C., Wallis, P. & Willman, R. (2001) Product certification and ecolabelling for fisheries sustainability. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 422, FAO, Rome, Italy. Vannuccini, S. (2002) Overview of fish production, utilisation, consumption and trade. FAO Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit, Rome, Italy. Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C, Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.A. & Watson, R. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ecosystem services. Science, 314, 787–790.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Chapter 10

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling Trevor J. Ward

10.1 Introduction This chapter considers the issues involved in determining the success of a seafood certification or ecolabelling initiative. This includes what is meant by the environmental and ecological aspects of ‘sustainability’ in the seafood capture and production context, what is meant by success, and factors that affect the overall effectiveness of a seafood certification or ecolabelling initiative. The emphasis here is on the ecological aspects of sustainability and the success of certification and ecolabelling in securing ecological improvements in fisheries and aquaculture. There is only a limited history of seafood certification or ecolabelling marketbased incentive programmes, as discussed in Chapter 1, and there are very limited data that could be used as examples to assess the success of the existing programmes. However, there are some important patterns emerging from the earliest seafood initiatives about what constitutes success and what it means for consumers. Measuring and reporting on success is important for two key reasons. First, it indicates the extent to which certification and ecolabelling initiatives create improved practices in the production of seafood from the fishing and aquaculture sectors. Second, reporting on the extent of environmental improvement is a key ingredient in reinforcing the value of certification and ecolabelling in the market – consumers who do not believe that a specific ecolabel represents a driving force for improved management will not be convinced to continue to purchase those ecolabelled products. Seafood resellers will then be reluctant to stock and promote certified or ecolabelled products, and so the market-based incentive will shrink. Reporting on specific environmental successes is also a key part of differentiating amongst the various seafood certification and ecolabel initiatives. This will be become an increasingly important part of business strategies as such seafood initiatives increase in number and global spread and compete for market share (Gulbrandsen 2006).

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

207

BLBK019-Ward

208

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

10.2 Producing seafood sustainably Many recent government and technical reviews of the conditions and trends in ocean ecosystems have concluded that large proportions of the world’s marine living resources are either currently overexploited or are showing dangerous signs of heading towards over-exploitation (e.g. RCEP 2004, High Seas Task Force 2006). These conclusions are based on technical analysis and reviews of the declines in major predatory fish populations of open oceans (Myers & Worm 2003, 2005, Worm et al. 2005), the well-known issues of coastal fish stocks (Pauly et al. 1998) and the declining state of the world’s fisheries (FAO 2007). Similarly, there are serious worldwide problems with the degradation of marine ecosystems, habitats and species, many of which aquaculture and fishing depend on in various ways. Some of these problems are related to the impacts of fishing itself (Pew Oceans Commission 2003, US Oceans Commission 2004, RCEP 2004) while others relate to land-based sources of stress, such as the pollution of rivers and coastal waters with nutrients and sediments from poor waste and land management practices (http://www.cep.unep.org/issues/lbsp.html; Reid et al. 2005). These problems are not confined to developing countries, and in developed nations they are now being increasingly publicly recognised and management responses are being deployed (O’Boyle et al. 2005). These recent expert analyses, reviews and overviews have different perspectives, assess widely divergent data and consider a range of situations from highly stressed inshore marine ecosystems to remote and deep sea ecosystems. However, they call for major reforms to marine governance and management systems, both within national jurisdictions and on the high seas. For marine capture fisheries, the reform agenda now principally revolves around the introduction of ecosystem-based management systems that are specifically designed to resolve issues of sustainability of the fishing industries (e.g. Ward et al. 2002, Pikitch et al. 2004, US Oceans Commission 2004). However, introducing the ‘ecosystem approach’ to fishing is not likely to resolve the many major issues affecting global marine ecosystems and their fish stocks in the short term (Sinclair et al. 2002). Amongst many other problems, there are as yet no clear and meaningful expressions of what the ‘ecosystem approach’ actually means for fisheries management, nor what it means at the practical level of everyday fishing activity, for fishing communities, fisheries managers or a fishing industry. Furthermore, the concept of the ‘ecosystem approach’ offers very little scope for reform of small-scale fisheries, which are the source of many major impacts on coastal tropical marine ecosystems, because of the imperatives of wealth generation and food security that typically prevail in such developing country situations. Recovery of the world’s oceans and their living resources from their present degraded condition is likely to be a complex and long-term problem that depends on a mixed basket of management measures. A single comprehensive system that operates at all scales from global to local is probably unachievable within the diversity of governance systems operating in the modern world. The closest such mechanism

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

209

and set of measures presently being developed are the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) programmes, including their global ecolabelling guidelines (see Chapter 3), the efficacy of which has still to be determined. Marine living resources are currently managed under systems that range from open access (no effective constraints – the situation that applies for a number of fish stocks in international waters) to highly constrained and intensively managed local fishing controls (such as the high-value near-shore species in many developed countries). In addition, a large proportion of the world’s fish are taken in small-scale subsistence fisheries in developing tropical nations where management controls are not always effective. Good fisheries management, including the introduction of more ecosystem-based approaches, offers the potential to resolve some of the important issues of sustainable production of seafood (Beddington et al. 2007), but given the diversity of governance systems operating across the world’s oceans at the various scales, even if the biological and ecological issues were sufficiently well understood, it is not clear that appropriate remedial measures could be determined or effectively applied through the existing range of global governance measures. Designing ecosystem-based fisheries measures that are both effective and have a high likelihood of adoption by local communities, by fishers, by fisheries managers and traders across the developed and developing world, appears to be the preeminent challenge of the coming decades for marine resource managers. Given the politics, economic and food security issues of marine resource management, and the inherent inertia in promoting paradigm shift, the problem of creating a major structural change to fisheries and aquaculture management systems seems likely to remain intractable for at least several more decades.

10.2.1 The issues of concern All fisheries and aquaculture activities generate some form of environmental impact. The concept of sustainability is based on the use of resources in a manner that provides for minimal and acceptable levels of impact on all aspects of the species harvested, and on any related ecosystems, habitats and associated species, while meanwhile providing for acceptable levels of food security, resource security and wealth generation for dependent human populations and businesses (WCED 1987). However, sustainability is also a dynamic and heavily value-laden concept that depends on the vision and objectives of the communities that are engaged in resource use and management, and may differ at different scales of organisation and between cultures (Dahl 1997, and see Chapter 5). For industries that produce seafood (both aquaculture and wild capture), sustainability can be perhaps best described as the use of resources and production of seafood in an economically efficient manner that recognises the importance of the health and integrity of marine ecosystems and creates levels of impacts that are both low and acceptable to consumers. Ecosystem-based management is an approach to management of a resource that links the specific activities of different sectors in the context of overall potential

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

210

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

ecosystem impacts, taking account of the activities of all users and of the natural variability of marine ecosystems to maintain health and integrity of ecosystems (Gislason et al. 2000, RCEP 2004, US Oceans Commission 2004). In ecosystembased management, integrated governance arrangements, participation of stakeholders, and the integrity of ecosystems, habitats and species are all important features and are crucial elements of the new paradigms in resource management (e.g. Ward et al. 2002, Pikitch et al. 2004). The state of global fisheries management systems and their capacity to adapt to the modern-day concerns of over-exploitation and ecological impacts may be best summarised as follows: We may need to be satisfied with management systems that are reactive and adaptive, but reduce the risk of stock collapse by not seeking to maximise yields, since this apparently increases the accompanying risk of radical ecosystem change. With respect to multispecies fishery management, where different fleets specialise in harvesting trophically linked components of the same food web, quota-setting has begun to take this into account. Examples here include consideration of predator–prey interactions between cod and capelin in the setting of capelin TACS in the North Atlantic waters of Canada, and the implicit setting aside of a component of the production of the prey species, krill, to cover the food requirements of birds, marine mammals and other dependent predators in setting the krill TAC in waters under CCAMLR jurisdiction’ (Caddy & Cochrane 2001).

Beyond local and regional impacts, fisheries are recognised as an important factor affecting the resilience of the global oceans, and increasing the risk of major ecological regime shifts (Scheffer et al. 2001, Folke et al. 2004). This points directly to the need for improved integration of fisheries management systems into the sustainable management of the oceans at a range of scales from local to global, including improved vertical integration of management objectives and strategies relating to ocean biodiversity and dynamics much more broadly than just management of directly exploited species (Pikitch et al. 2004). The issues of sustainability span many disciplines of science and technology (Kurlansky 1999). Sustainability has to deal with concerns about wealth generation for local communities and national jurisdictions, regional employment and fishing industry facilities, shipbuilding and related marine industries, food security for local communities, ecological impacts on habitats and ecosystems, trophic linkages with other species – both fished and unfished, the level of harvest that can be maintained in the face of fluctuating ocean environment conditions and many more. New fisheries management paradigms anticipate that fisheries managers will respect and respond to the issues of sustainability within their fishery management systems, and this is placing fishery managers under considerable stress as they move to adopt and incorporate this additional breadth of management needs. Also, the move towards more ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management, consistent with

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

211

global moves towards more integrated ecosystem-based management of the oceans, has placed considerable further stress on the institutions traditionally involved with fisheries management (Caddy & Seij 2005). The obvious lesson that has to be learned from worldwide fisheries and the related environmental issues is, in the lexicon of systems analysis, that the basic model structure for fisheries management is inadequate. However, changing the traditional models and paradigms means overcoming substantial vested interests that operate to maintain the status quo. The institutional fragmentation, inertia and conservatism in fisheries management and supporting research institutions appears to be one of the major hurdles to be overcome in progressing towards more sustainable fisheries through the integrated ecosystem-based management of the oceans and their resources (Pew Oceans Commission 2003, US Oceans Commission 2004). Despite this uncertainty and inertia, there are five issues that most analysts agree appear to plague the world’s marine fisheries and aquaculture. They form the basis for a developing recognition amongst scientists and policy makers that if these central issues in the sustainability of marine fisheries and aquaculture can be resolved, sustainability is more likely to be achieved (after Sinclair et al. 2002, Pikitch et al. 2004, US Oceans Commission 2004): 1. the condition and resilience of ocean ecosystems is maintained; 2. the risk of irreversible change to species and ecosystems is minimal; 3. long-term socio-economic benefits are obtained without compromising the condition of ecosystems; 4. improved knowledge of ecosystem processes is used to better understand the consequences of fishing; and 5. participatory and integrated spatial management arrangements are used to manage ocean ecosystems.

10.3 Assessing ecological sustainability Given these five core issues of sustainability for fisheries and aquaculture, an assessment of the sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture ventures should involve consideration of the impacts of the activities on the target species (the fish caught or cultivated) as well as direct and indirect impacts on related ecosystems, habitats and species. In addition to these ecological aspects, there are important aspects of sustainability related to wealth generation and food security that should also be involved with assessments of seafood sustainability (Leadbitter & Ward 2007), but these are not considered further here. A robust conceptual framework is needed that provides the context and linkages for the assessment of ecological sustainability, including the various scales of space and time, otherwise assessments of fishery sustainability may prove to be misleading. For example, can we be sure that any specific incentive or proposed

BLBK019-Ward

212

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

improvement in an industry practice will lead to a favourable change in sustainability at all levels in the sector? Can we be sure that a specific activity proposed in the name of sustainability does not ‘export’ the essence of an issue to another operator or nearby operation, or to another sector (such as from a wild capture fishery to aquaculture operations for the same species)? How will consumers react if a locally endorsed programme of sustainability contributes to unsustainable outcomes elsewhere, for example when considered at a national or global level? Assessing only one part of the operations of a fishery or aquaculture venture, not considering the broader implications outside the venture being assessed, or not taking a consistent and comprehensive approach to different assessments may be misleading, or worse, simply lead to incorrect conclusions that appear to be correct. Without a clear and explicit conceptual framework to set the context for assessing any improvements invoked in the name of sustainability, there is a risk that such improvements may be (even unwittingly) counter-productive to achieving broader ecological sustainability. The need for a robust approach to sustainability assessment in capture fisheries and aquaculture is closely linked to the need for a common standard for sustainability. For example, a standard for sustainable fishing should clearly define the elements that contribute to sustainable fishing, what level is required of each of the elements to meet the requirements of sustainability and what activities (or levels of an activity) are considered to fall outside the bounds of ‘sustainability’. If such a standard existed, then a sustainability assessment programme would use this as the basis for evaluating individual fisheries or aquaculture ventures. However, both a standard and an assessment framework have proved elusive because there are many forms of fishing and aquaculture systems; many species are involved, often with vastly different life-history characteristics and ecological interactions; there are many types of management arrangements in the many countries and cultures that depend on fishing; and there are many types of ecosystems fished. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that there is no commonly accepted ecological sustainability standard, nor a common approach to the question of how to assess the sustainability of a marine fishery or aquaculture operation. While there are many policy-level expressions of the need for sustainability, broad guidance for what is needed, and an evolving consensus on the key elements of sustainability in aquaculture and fisheries, there have been few attempts to articulate the details of a common standard and an accompanying process that could be used for effective assessment of compliance that would apply across the globe. A central dilemma that has complicated the definition and assessment of sustainability is the difficulty of achieving an integration of the three main policy arenas – the conservation and integrity of ocean ecosystems, the management of harvesting of natural resources and the maintenance of acceptable socio-economic progress – to deliver genuine sustainability in ocean and coastal areas. While policy integration may be achievable, the integration of diverse operational institutions,

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

213

objectives and activities that in many cases will be competing has proven to be much more challenging (US Oceans Commission 2004). Although such integration at the operational level is difficult, the central technical issues are reasonably clear. For example, the central issue of maintaining healthy and resilient populations of the species being harvested revolves not around maximising production, but around optimising production based on standards for species conservation rather than production (Caddy & Cochrane 2001, Hilborn et al. 2003). In response to the seemingly intractable problem of identifying and understanding all the issues of ecological sustainability in fisheries and aquaculture, and despite the uncertainty about their effectiveness, market-based incentives are often invoked as a potentially important tool that may be able to direct industry practices towards more sustainable activities (Gislason et al. 2000, Wessells 2000, Sinclair et al. 2002, May et al. 2003, Jaffry et al. 2004). The diffuse nature of the sustainability concept, the lack of a common conceptual model for integrating across the space and time scales and diversity of governance systems, and the lack of agreed standards at any level of the concept provide for a very diffuse target for certification or ecolabelling systems and their operations. Nonetheless, market-based incentives have become a popular tool for creating a shift in production practices despite the few demonstrated ecological or environmental outcomes that can be uniquely ascribed to such tools and the ongoing debate about their effectiveness (Muller 2002, Kaiser & EdwardsJones 2006, Wennberg & Bjerner 2006; see Box 10.1).

Box 10.1 Resolving the Unsustainable Use of Fishery Resources: A Perspective on the Issues Ecolabelling is seen by many as a way of using the power of consumers to affect markets. For fisheries, the most prominent ecolabelling scheme is the independent certification scheme run by the Marine Stewardship Council. But very little hard research has been done into the effectiveness of ecolabelling schemes in meeting sustainable management objectives. On the one hand, proponents of such schemes argue that they offer cachet to exporters in the form of access to niche markets and thus allow them to charge a price premium. On the other hand, many developing countries have a negative perception of the impact that environmental labels have on their trade flows and of the costs of compliance. Research attention could profitably be devoted to assembling hard evidence with which to test the effect on the market (and resource sustainability) that voluntary ecolabelling schemes such as the MSC initiative really have. Research could also usefully focus on the actual economic costs of such schemes, including the direct, indirect, one-off and recurring costs of compliance, as well as the potential WTO implications of government funding for independent schemes. A considerable amount of energy and resources are being expended by some in the seafood industry to promote the purchase of seafood only from sustainable

BLBK019-Ward

214

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

sources. This is particularly true in Europe, where major corporations have built entire food sourcing campaigns around sustainable seafood initiatives. Some examples include Unilever’s Fish Sustainability Initiative, a commitment by the UK supermarket chain J. Sainsbury to source all its wild fish from sustainable sources, Royal Ahold’s (Netherlands) Ecosound project and the ‘Fish for Our Future’ programme sponsored by Whole Foods Markets in the United States. Whilst these examples would appear to indicate a trend, at least in the developed world, towards corporate demand for sustainable fish products, we do not know what the true effect of these trends is on the market. Not enough research has been done to establish whether corporate demand for sustainable fish is driven by consumer demand for sustainable products, or whether corporate interest is driving consumer demand. The Task Force is less sanguine about the effectiveness of other trade and market place measures. Instinctively, a combination of the exercise of corporate social responsibility, sound purchasing choices by major wholesalers, chain-ofcustody schemes and consumer action, backed up by government action to support enforcement of conservation rules would appear to offer a solution to limit the ways in which IUU [Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported] product can reach the market, but there remain serious questions about the application of such measures to developing countries and major new markets, such as China. There is also a need to assemble hard evidence with which to test the effect on the market, as well as on sustainability that voluntary ecolabelling schemes such as the Marine Stewardship Council initiative really have. Research also needs to focus on the actual economic costs of such schemes, including the direct, indirect, one-off and recurring costs of compliance, as well as the potential WTO implications of government funding for independent schemes.

From High Seas Task Force, 2006.

10.4 The nature of success The two key aspects of ecolabelling success are: first, the extent of market acceptance and penetration by the ecolabel and the supporting certification system; and second, the extent to which ecological changes are created through the market-based incentive of the ecolabel. Market penetration is typically assessed and reported as the number of certified or labelled products, the amount of product and the extent of coverage of the intended market (e.g. see Chapter 4 for the market penetration by the MSC ecolabel). However, assessing and reporting on ecological achievements of an ecolabel is considerably more difficult. Since ecolabels are only one tool being used to improve management of fisheries and aquaculture ventures, it may be difficult to identify the contribution ecolabelling makes to any ecological improvements that might be observed. Also, ecological improvements may take many

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

215

years to be expressed in ways that can be measured, and this makes it difficult to link any observed improvements to the causes of change. In 1997, SeaWeb launched the Give Swordfish a Break campaign, focused on persuading chefs to avoid purchasing swordfish (see Chapters 7 and 20). ‘Conservationists say the boycott turned depleted swordfish stocks around and scored a victory. Industry leaders believe the boycott merely shifted demand, increasing swordfish imports and unfairly hurting U.S. fishermen’ (Duchene 2004). The difficulty of defining exactly what sustainability is for any specific fishery or aquaculture venture has led to confusion and challenges about the accuracy of a number of seafood product endorsements and even the actual objectives of some incentive programmes. The confusion of concepts, language, expectations and standards has resulted in a situation where some products may be labelled as sustainable or acceptable by one programme, but black-listed by another (see Chapter 1). There are also concerns about the misuse of ratings and guides to promote specific issues and agendas that may not relate to sustainability. As a result, there is a plethora of labels, guides and ratings in the marketplace, and an extensive array of claim and counter-claims about the accuracy and appropriateness of specific product endorsements and about the actual condition of fisheries (see below, and, e.g., http://www.oceantrust.org/fishfacts.htm). Being able to define, measure and clearly report on ‘success’ is therefore crucial in order for consumers to be able to determine if the product endorsements are accurate. If, for example, an incentive programme does not consider displaced fishing effort, product traceability and substitution, and marketplace controls for illegally caught products, then consumers may decide that such a programme does not comprehensively deal with fishery sustainability issues. But if consumers are unaware that such matters are issues in ecologically sustainable seafood production, the use of consumer purchasing preference (for certified products that do not consider such issues) may not provide an appropriate incentive for improved environmental practices, and consequently, such consumer preference may provide support for unsustainable practices. Measuring success is also crucial for those organisations that design and deliver incentive programmes. Defendable and robust measures of success are important to ensure the ongoing viability, because the funders and backers of such programmes will always require hard evidence that their support and funds are being effective. Evaluating the success of a programme also provides the basis for adaptation and improvement to respond to emerging environmental and business trends, and to maintain a current awareness of important issues. Information on success is likely to be very important in establishing a point of differentiation amongst the various ecolabelling, rating and guide systems, many of which appear to compete for consumer appeal and attention. Environmental outcomes demonstrably achieved by a market-based incentive programme in seafood sustainability are likely to be well regarded by consumers, and this favourable perception can be readily absorbed into marketing of the seafood certified by that programme.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

216

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

10.4.1 The sustainability standard For consumers, probably the most important and influential feature of any marketbased incentive programme is the quality and coverage of the standard (Chapter 1). For incentive systems focussed on the ecological sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture ventures, setting a high standard of environmental performance potentially creates a greater incentive because of the higher levels of ecological benefits that will flow and a higher level of market differentiation for their product recommendation. However, the higher the ecological standard and the greater the distance between the present level of environmental performance and the performance encoded within the sustainability standard, the greater the barrier for a seafood venture in order to become compliant with the standard. This makes it more difficult and costly for a fishery or aquaculture activity to enter into the incentive system. Also, it means that fewer ventures and products will become endorsed and be offered in the marketplace, thereby restricting the potential for consumer ‘pull’ of environmental practices. Setting the standard is therefore a highly complex balancing act that must assess the specific trade-offs that will be likely to occur within the incentive system, and establishing the right balance amongst these factors is critical to success. The factors to be considered, some of which may be opposing, include:

r the exact elements of sustainability to be covered by the standard; r the minimum level of performance on each element that will be considered to have satisfied the standard;

r the cost of verification in relation to the capacity of ventures to pay; r the type of product endorsement (internet, advertising, label, card, colours, text, size, positioning, etc.);

r the precise wording of the endorsement; r the details of the verification system, and in particular how to maintain the independence of the verifier (the certifier) from outside influence;

r the grading in performance levels (pass, fail or graduated); r the balance of importance of each element in the assessment process; r how the standard-setting organisation will maintain its funding, independence, balance, its focus and community norms;

r how the sustainability standard will be kept up-to-date, maintain the optimum increment between current industry best-practice and a possibly more aspirational sustainability standard; and r how to provide for incremental improvement of the standard (elements, performance levels). Every fishery and aquaculture production venture has effects on species, ecosystems and habitats that are linked to capture and production activities. In determining a standard, the challenge is to define explicitly what are the types of effects that will be covered by the standard, and the acceptable levels of such effects, because

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

217

this is the operational expression of the concept of ‘sustainability’. This expression is highly value-laden, and is not a decision to be made by scientists or technical advisory bodies alone (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of this issue in relation to aquaculture). The level of acceptable effect is a decision to be taken by the standard owner recognising the range of values, perceptions and positions held by the stakeholders and consumers that jointly will contribute to the success or failure of the incentive system. It is clear that such decision process should be well informed and grounded in technically reliable data, information and points of uncertainty. However, the decisions about the levels of acceptable impact should be made by the standard owner recognising community norms, prevailing values, the market types to be influenced, the existing levels of industry best practice and the type of environmental improvements that are the focus of the specific incentive system. The standard (combining the choice of elements to be covered and the levels of acceptable impact on each element) is the performance benchmark against which the producer or fishery will be assessed. To be effective, the product endorsement must be directly linked to the standard (see Chapter 1) because only through reference to the standard can a consumer determine what the endorsement really represents in the case of each producer or fishery being assessed for their right to carry a product endorsement.

10.4.2 Clear and unequivocal standard The standard must be a clearly defined and expressed benchmark. If the standard is unclear, ambiguous, implicit rather than explicit or in any way not definitive, then assessments carried out to verify compliance of a venture may not provide clear outcomes. This is because any verification may then be subject to substantial levels of interpretation (by all parties), be uncertain and lead to an inconclusive, and possibly disputed, assessment outcome. Also, a standard that is not explicit may be open to pressure and manipulation by specific interests or sector groups to press home a particular vantage point. Such an opportunity, in most countries, favours the industry sector over the environment or local community interests, because these latter groups rarely have adequate resources to enable them to fully engage in disputes over assessment outcomes that may appear to be inconclusive or incorrect. As one example of the unintended consequences of a flexible standard, there is concern that certified fisheries may shelter behind the apparent protection of compliance with a sustainability standard when being pressed to provide improved sustainability practices. Australia’s Western Rock Lobster Fishery has denied the need to design and implement fishing sanctuaries amongst the Western Australian coastal reef systems to meet sustainability requirements because it claims that this matter is covered under its Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification (Sutton 2003). While such sanctuaries are clearly likely to be beneficial for both fisheries management and offsetting fishery impacts (Ward et al. 2001), the fishery managers claim that the MSC certification proves that the fishery is sustainable

BLBK019-Ward

218

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

without sanctuaries. This is a misinterpretation of the MSC standard and certification outcomes, but because the standard is flexible, the fishery has not been required to implement sanctuary zones to offset the impacts of fishing on the stock or on coastal ecosystems. Rather, the MSC process has identified a lack of data and knowledge about the fishery impacts, and has required the fishery to develop a much better knowledge base about its impacts, so an appropriate set of mitigating arrangements may be designed and implemented in due course, which may include a set of sanctuary zones. The lack of a clear and explicit MSC standard in relation to the role of sanctuaries, and the positioning of the standard at a level lower than the requirement for sanctuaries in MSC-certified fisheries have enabled the Western Rock Lobster Fishery to defend effectively against the local pressure for implementation of sanctuaries. As a result, it is suggested (Sutton 2003) that the MSC, rather than providing a benefit, has had a detrimental effect on the sustainability of this fishery because without the MSC certification, the fishery would have been under considerably more pressure to design and implement sanctuaries as offsets for fishery impacts. It is not clear if this local pressure for sanctuaries would have been effective, but it is clear that the MSC standard is equivocal about the need for sanctuaries in an industrial-scale fishery for lobsters in high biodiversity-value coastal ecosystems. This flexibility is exploited by the fishery managers to avoid introducing sanctuaries, which they consider unnecessary, but otherwise would probably be considered to be an important part of ecological sustainability in this fishery. In this case, this fishery shelters behind the MSC standard because it is flexible and unclear about the need for sanctuaries to offset the effects of fishing. The quality of a sustainability standard depends on the range of attributes, relevance to the issues, clarity of expression, capacity to be used in a robust verification (certification) process and the ready availability of a clear but non-technical version for public information. While many of the issues addressed by a standard may be highly technical, and may require substantial supporting technical information, the standard itself should be able to be easily understood by moderately aware and educated consumers. Where the standard is to be applied in non-English speaking countries, the way in which the standard translates (e.g. to French, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese) is important when constructing the form of the text. Nonetheless, each key point of the standard should be amplified through the use of one or more examples. This is to ensure that consumers and all stakeholders are clear about what the standard is, what the consequent product endorsement really stands for and what levels of ecological improvement can be expected to occur as a result of applying the standard to a fishery or aquaculture venture.

10.4.3 Scope and focus If a standard is to be effective in capturing both consumer and producer interest, and to leverage meaningful improvements in ecological sustainability, it should reflect

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

219

each of the 5 core issues of sustainability discussed in Section 10.2 above. Each of these issues could be included in the standard in a number of ways, but each should be properly represented in its full breadth and scope. This might mean that each issue was divided into a number of sub-issues dealing with a specific aspect of the main issue. For example, in dealing with wealth production issues (the third issue), the standard might specify the limits at which fish populations must be maintained in relation to benchmarks developed by responsible authorities for this purpose, or perhaps developed by a fishing community. Alternatively, where it is feasible to establish a definitive benchmark by reference to external practices, the standard may refer to an absolute benchmark defined by the standard owner (such as 50% of the estimated never-fished adult biomass in a fishery may be required to be retained after each year of fishing, Constable et al. 2000). Or the standard may provide the details for how, in the context of a specific type of fishery, the standard for the level of biomass in a sustainable fish population should be calculated taking into account uncertainties and precaution. A standard that leaves such decisions to the verification process conducted by a certifier without providing an exact mechanism for making a meaningful decision is a flexible standard, and is not likely to be effective because there are different ways in which the stock biomass limits can be specified by different certifiers for different fisheries. This creates the situation where the process leading to the most favourable outcome will be the one advocated by some stakeholders, while the process leading to the least favourable outcome will be advocated by other stakeholders, leading to controversy and dispute about a certifier’s judgement. The mechanism for decision taking should take account of the need for flexibility, but should protect against the possibility of bias or influence of the decision by vested interest groups. Decisions achieved by consensus of stakeholder groups, or industry or government agencies, are notoriously prone to motivational bias, and any decision-making process that is used to assess the fishery against the standard must ensure that any such adverse bias can be identified and avoided. The standard needs to be written so that it guards against bias having adverse consequences in the verification process, and provides the smallest possible manoeuvring room for variable interpretation. For each matter identified in the standard, an operational expression, or a robust guide to operational interpretation should be provided to the verifiers/certifiers, to producers and to consumers. Without this, the standard will be (correctly) considered to be only guidance to certifiers and consumers, and not a definitive standard. This issue has also plagued forest certification, and remains unresolved (Ghazoul 2001). Since it is difficult to conceive of the operational elements of a seafood sustainability standard that could be applied to every form of fishery or aquaculture venture, for a certification or ecolabelling initiative intended to apply broadly across many different types of ventures and regions, it may be necessary for an effective standard to be formulated in a hierarchical manner, and specified in detail for each of a range of types of fisheries and aquaculture ventures expected to be encountered.

BLBK019-Ward

220

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

As an example of a theoretical hierarchical ecological sustainability standard for capture fisheries, a global standard may refer to bycatch issues for seabirds, while a subset of the standard may refer specifically to long-line fisheries in the Antarctic region, and specify the level of incidental mortality that must not be exceeded in a fishery bycatch for each species of protected bird, or a group of birds. The process of setting the standard for such birds would refer to existing knowledge of the conservation status of bird populations, risks, bycatch rates, and (critically) to consumer concerns. Such decisions might be incorporated into the standard through reference to existing control mechanisms that may apply to longline Antarctic fisheries. The level of bycatch may be set by the standard owner at a level considered to be feasible and achievable through the best of the best practices in the industry, but nonetheless protective of the bird populations. Through a grading of the standard, a fishery that caused no incidental mortality to these birds could be awarded the highest grading, and a fishery that killed more birds, although still within limits set by the standard and considered to be safe for bird populations, may achieve a lower grading. The scope of an effective standard should also cover the nature of evidence, data and information, and be specific about how certifiers should make decisions in the absence of appropriate data on each specific aspect of the standard. This is important if the standard is to operate in a cautious way to protect ocean ecosystems, and not allow the lack of data and information to be used as an excuse to award compliance to a standard. Effectively, the lack of reasonable data and knowledge should be used as a basis for not awarding compliance with a standard, consistent with applying the burden of proof of sustainability to the applicant for the label. This is discussed further under Uncertainty and Precaution below. If the standard is weakly expressed, is not properly focussed on the sustainability issues that pertain to the product, does not provide a proper benchmark that is technically credible and accepted by consumers or cannot be verified through a robust process of assessment, the standard will not be credible. Even if the system provides good processes for judgement and quantification of performance (such as a numerical scoring system using stakeholder input, statistical analysis of outcomes data, polling of experts), if the standard is not of a high enough quality to meet technical and consumer expectations, then the outcomes of verification of the performance of the fishery against the standard will be open. This will lead ultimately to a limited consumer acceptance of the product endorsement. Product endorsements based on standards that have a limited scope, such as covering only one part of the sustainability issues that surround a product, will fail to influence consumers in the medium to long term. This failure may take some time to be expressed, but standards of limited scope are not likely to be effective or to persist in the long term. A limited-scope standard is one that, for example, codifies a specific requirement for an outcome that is not consistent with creating a genuine environmental improvement, or it may only deal with a limited part of an environmental problem. Examples of such standards can be easily found in

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

221

the seafood marketplace. A standard that purports to relate to the sustainability of a fishery, but that is developed and verified by the industry concerned, or by any organisation that has a vested interest in increased sales (such as a seafood wholesaler, or even in some cases a government regulatory agency) is clearly likely to have a strong motivational bias. Only fully independent third-party certification systems can avoid most of the risks of such bias. Standards that have only limited scope are usually conceived and applied to reinforce the prospect of success through achieving the possible, rather than risking failure through attempting the difficult. Ultimately, standards that are of limited scope are likely to contribute little to increasing sustainability in fisheries or aquaculture systems, and they will have only limited medium-term acceptance by consumers. Indeed, their main value may lie in pointing to deficiencies in certification systems, leading eventually to higher-quality outcomes through progressive improvements of the standards in the long term.

10.4.4 Outcomes and processes The outcomes of the management system consist of the achievements that are tangible, and generally, are observable and measurable. Outcomes from a fishery management system comprise matters such as the maintenance of the breeding stock size above a specific limit reference point, or the control of bycatch of an important species of seabird or mammal below a specified maximum acceptable level to achieve specific rates of population rebuilding. Processes within the management system comprise the strategies developed to achieve the management objectives (including the intended outcomes), such as the procedures to take scientific advice about the breeding stock size (either the current level or the level predicted for the next fishing season), which may involve a network of advisory committees. Other processes include the procedures used to control fishing activities (such as permitted times of day, net sizes or fishing techniques) that ensure that a bycatch limit is not exceeded. Fisheries or aquaculture management systems will normally include a number of processes and strategies that contribute to achieving sustainability conditions and outcomes. Although a fishery or venture may have a comprehensive set of such processes, consumers are not empowered with the appropriate knowledge to enable them to determine whether any specific process or strategy (such as a bycatch action plan in a fishery, or a particular form of committee structure) will lead to the intended outcome (such as an acceptably low level of bycatch) and so there must be an accompanying process to confirm that sustainable outcomes are being achieved. While such strategies and procedures are important aspects of a management system, on their own they do not guarantee that a fishery is achieving sustainable outcomes. To ensure that a venture is achieving the expected sustainability outcomes and objectives, the standard should encompass a balance of outcomes and processes employed in the management system. It is important that the standard should not

BLBK019-Ward

222

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

give an unreasonable weight to management processes at the expense of ecological or socio-economic outcomes (see below for balance of assessment elements). In the forestry sector, the standards of different certification programmes have converged from different starting points to the situation where now they generally incorporate aspects of both processes (systems-based approach) and of outcomes (performance-based approach) into their standards (Auld & Bull 2003). For the purpose of assessing ecological sustainability, design and implementation of a standard consisting exclusively of ecological outcomes is, however, largely a matter for conjecture. Few fisheries or aquaculture ventures could ever show compliance with such standards in more than a limited set of ecological issues, and it is questionable if such a standard could be developed with the longevity to withstand the commercial pressures of the marketplace, and it may not be able to permit the incentive loop to be completed (Chapter 1). Although there may be some fisheries or aquaculture ventures that have sufficient information and data to be able to verify that they comply with a solely ecological outcomes-based standard, they may have difficulty with supplying enough product to the market to create and maintain the incentive loop particularly in the highly competitive and globalised seafood market of today (see Chapters 9 and 18). This, coupled with the high levels of uncertainty and inertia in the seafood sector, means that a standard developed to be ecologically pure would have little practical support outside some sectional interests, and would not prove to be a very viable market-based incentive. It is therefore important to achieve a practical balance in the standard between outcomes and processes. This creates the situation where consumers, stakeholders and the industry can become fully engaged and support an incentive programme that is feasible and achievable. Achieving this balance is a delicate process, but crucial to the success of a certification or ecolabelling programme. By focusing on both outcomes and processes, such a standard also serves to draw the attention of consumers to the breadth of management processes that are important to the continuous improvement concept of sustainability.

10.4.5 A balanced standard The standard should clearly set out what balance is intended between the various elements of the sustainability assessment. Clearly expressing the balance amongst the elements of the standard, and weighting of the issues, is crucial to ensure that consumers accept that their issues of concern are being appropriately addressed through the application of the standard. A most crucial balance to express and to establish in the standard (as discussed above) is the relative importance placed on the outcomes of the management system in the fishery compared to the management processes adopted to achieve those outcomes. Some consumers may consider that a seafood sustainability standard should be primarily about demonstrated outcomes, such as ensuring that seacages do not provide a source of disease or genetically modified species that are released to the

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

223

natural environment, or having zero bycatch of protected species in a capture fishery. However, while there are many such important outcomes that may be encoded into a sustainability standard, achieving a high level of performance on such issues (such as ensuring there are never any escapes from seacages) may be very difficult and costly for a venture to achieve. Also, measuring and reporting for verification purposes on such activities may be cumbersome and expensive. So, where there is a high level of confidence in the links between management processes and outcomes – such as a high level of certainty that specific cage management measures will provide a high level of protection against escapes, or a highly effective form of bird bycatch mitigation technique is proven to always result in a very low level of bird bycatch – it may be possible for a standard to have a mix of processes and outcomes as the basis for assessment of sustainability. Setting this balance between outcomes and processes in the standard also raises many questions about the validity of the use of processes as surrogates for outcomes, the assessment/verification procedures and the role of expert opinion in adjudicating on the surrogacy models that link processes to outcomes. Where there is a high level of certainty that a series of management processes will deliver important sustainability outcomes at a level considered to be a high level of performance, then the standard for some matters may defer to the processes rather than rely primarily on outcomes. While setting a standard based on processes is normally easier and cheaper to verify, and holds considerable appeal, making the judgement about the use of processes will normally depend on data, knowledge and assumptions that are uncertain. In most cases the process-outcome relationship is likely to be variable, and not likely to be robust under all circumstances. For example, while a bird bycatch mitigating device may be shown to be highly effective in trials in a fishery under normal fishing conditions, it may not always function effectively under different sea conditions, or on different types of fishing vessels, for all important bird species, or in situations where there has been inadequate training or experience in the crew on how to deploy the device (www.wcpfc.int/wcpfc3/pdf/Birdlife%20-% 20Sea%20bird%20mitigation.pdf). Such uncertainties about the inclusion of management processes as surrogates for sustainability outcomes inevitably mean that even where a management process (such as the use of the bird bycatch mitigating device) is included within a management system, and is established within a sustainability standard, there is also a need to provide assurance and confirmation for consumers that the management process is actually effective in the fishery operations. To achieve this, it would therefore normally be necessary to also include within the standard some aspects of the outcome (such as number and species in bird bycatch), which would also be assessed as part of a verification procedure. In a broad sense therefore, for seafood sustainability standards focused on the ecological aspects of sustainability, it will be normally appropriate to establish an equal balance between the environmental outcomes and the supporting processes, both in the standard and the verification procedures. In effect, this establishes an equal balance of the risks of assessment failure between outcomes and processes.

BLBK019-Ward

224

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, a standard that allocates equal weighting to both outcomes and processes is probably relatively unbiased for the purposes of assessment of seafood sustainability. Achieving this balance between processes and outcomes in an unbiased assessment system gives effect to a basic principle of sustainability – the acknowledgement that sustainability is a pathway of incremental improvement, and that progress along that pathway depends on the presence, within a management system, of the appropriate set of processes for maintaining the fishery or aquaculture venture at the forefront of acceptable performance. Establishing the assessment standard to include both processes and outcomes reduces the risk that, even if all the possible sustainability outcomes are achieved by a fishery and it is fully in compliance with a high ecological standard, it may lack the processes and management systems to maintain such a high level of compliance. Without the supporting management processes in place, the products may not deserve to be labelled as sustainable. This is because the supporting management processes are probably required to keep a close watch over fishery practices and detect any undesirable trends in factors that could impact the fishery, or show trends in an unsustainable direction, even though it may currently comply with the performance levels of sustainability. In short, sustainability in fisheries and aquaculture management involves not only achieving the desired outcomes, but also ensuring that there is a robust support system for the maintenance of sustainability through the provision of an appropriate set of management processes. Without the use of a ‘balanced’ standard, a fishery may be incorrectly determined to have achieved sustainability for having achieved a preponderance of processes, or alternatively, of outcomes. For instance, a fishery or aquaculture venture that does not achieve any ecologically acceptable outcomes may nonetheless be assessed as being sustainable and in compliance with an unbalanced standard that focuses only, or mainly, on having a range of important processes in place within the management systems. This creates a serious difficulty, because even though the management and support processes may be in place (e.g. a fishery may have a bycatch action plan), they may not be effective or lead to acceptable outcomes (actual bycatch in the fishery may be much greater than predicted in the action plan, and exceed a reasonable benchmark for ecological sustainability). Thus, the fishery would not be sustainable in the eyes of most consumers even though it may have what appears to be an excellent set of verifiable management processes in place. Creating an appropriate balance between elements of the standard and the assessment procedures also requires careful consideration of the form of measures and the benchmarks that constitute ‘pass/fail’ thresholds in the standard. For example, a high-quality ecological standard would contain an absolute threshold that discouraged a fishery from imposing any substantive risk of mortality on recognised endangered species. This would be included in the standard as a form of ‘failsafe’ threshold, so that no matter what impacts might be imposed by a fishery, any catch of highly sensitive species would preclude achievement of the sustainability standard.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

225

Such absolute failsafe thresholds would need to be carefully specified in the standard, and rigorously enforced in the verification process. Failsafe thresholds could be easily applied in a hierarchical manner, using a simple sieve approach to verification. In such an arrangement, each of the failsafe thresholds would be assessed first, and any failure would disqualify the venture for compliance with the standard. Thus verification costs could be contained, and fisheries and aquaculture ventures would have clear and explicit guidance on the minimum acceptable standard required by the incentive programme. The New England Aquarium’s programme (Chapter 16) uses such a failsafe threshold as part of its assessment system. A robust seafood sustainability standard would also include elements relating to data and information, the design and effective implementation of strategies, assessment of risks, and others as part of the supporting management for a sustainable fishery or aquaculture venture. The decisions about which of these decision elements will be used to establish a standard that defines acceptable performance is a decision of the incentive programme itself. Clearly some of these elements imply higher sustainability expectations than others, and the way in which each decision element is blended into a programme of performance indicators, as well as the benchmark levels of performance that are set within the criteria of each element will greatly influence the quality of the sustainability standard, and ultimately the standing and credibility with consumers.

10.4.6 Technical clarity The technical basis of a standard needs to reflect each of the issues of sustainability and the specific interpretation that is developed through a standard-setting process. For example, a standard that is expressed in a precise numeric form for one or more issues, but in only descriptive terms for other issues, is biased. While it is tempting to establish a standard that uses best available science only where this can be applied in a well-developed way, using a detailed process for some aspects but not for others, this provides for an implicit weighting of the issues. While this may be the intention of the standard, the construction should make this explicit and ensure that any inconsistencies are revealed and the processes of verification are properly established to minimise any implicit weighting being applied. A common problem for fisheries sustainability assessments is how to equivalently compare the condition of fish stocks and the impacts of fishing on ecosystems. Assessing the condition of fish stocks is usually highly science driven and model dependent (Essington 2001). The sustainability standard for a wild-capture fishery could therefore require an assessment and verification of the type and quality of the scientific process used in the management system to establish a safe harvest of fish, the actual levels of harvest set and the size of the stocks needed to ensure an ongoing harvest with a high level of probability. In contrast, environmental issues are sometimes poorly researched, and there may be little data or knowledge with which a sustainability standard can be constructed, or the impacts of a fishery

BLBK019-Ward

226

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

assessed. Using a science-based approach to fish stocks and a stakeholder-based approach to environmental issues will unbalance the standard, introduce a bias and provide for an inconsistent decision-making process within the standard and the verification process. While the bias may be theoretically circumvented by use of the certification outcome or ecolabel only in the local context of the venture being assessed, in practice this cannot be achieved, and comparisons with other ventures are the inevitable result (see Chapter 1). The standard should be expressed in clear technical terms where possible, including the use of numerical benchmarks, but where a benchmark is to be derived through a process, either in the management system, or in the verification process, the precise steps and methodology need to be defined in clear technical detail in the standard. Where standards and embedded processes are not defined, and performance is based on expert judgement on the part of the certifier, verification can be problematical because of the potential abuse of the use of experts to support specific positions (see the discussion on norms below). The technical clarity of a standard is an important safeguard against an unintentional embedded emphasis on specific matters, and helps to avoid motivational bias in either verification outcomes or in assessments of the overall incentive programme. A standard that purports to address ecological sustainability issues in wildcapture fisheries should therefore clearly address the technical basis for how decisions about such complex matters as ‘overfishing’ are to be determined during verification of compliance with the standard. Leaving such matters open to the judgement of verifiers/certifiers is equivalent to providing a flexible standard, with the attendant risks of bias and manipulation.

10.4.7 Achievable The standard needs to be set at a level that is clearly achievable by at least a small number of the types of ventures that may wish to be assessed for compliance. Creating a standard that is too high (seeking high levels of ecological sustainability) will not provide an effective market-based incentive. Seafood producers will generally evaluate the costs of attaining a high standard (such as changes required in their practices, data and information required to prove compliance, any substantial restructuring of activities) to determine if they are offset by the benefits of endorsed products. Where the standard is flexible (see below) the gap between the existing level of performance and the level of performance intended by the standard is undefined, and verification becomes difficult and contentious, and open to influence. So, in developing a standard, certification organisations need to consider carefully how to specify the ‘gap’, and how to deal with verification. If the gap is too great, only few ventures will be compliant, there will be little endorsed product and the programme may fail, through the lack of marketable products, to generate the consumer-pull

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

227

for increasing sustainable practices. If the gap is too small, too many ventures will be compliant, and most products will be compliant, but there will be little appeal to the consumers because of limited product differentiation, and the programme may fail because there is a diminished differential in the marketplace for compliant products and no incentive for producers to keep improving practices once they achieve compliance. The ongoing success of an incentive programme relies on a continuing level of differentiation amongst products in the marketplace. This means that, after an incentive programme reaches maturity, there should be a significant proportion of seafood product that is not endorsed or compliant. After reaching a minimum threshold for effectiveness, an incentive programme may begin to lose effectiveness because of a lack of product differentiation and the development of competitive products and alternative certification systems (Gulbrandsen 2006). This means that the gap defined by the standard must continue to be maintained through the continuous improvement of the standard, and the consequent maintenance of product differentiation in the marketplace. So, while the standard should be set to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect for compliance of a significant proportion of the potential fisheries or aquaculture ventures, it must be able to be continuously reviewed and improved. This is not a flexible standard, but one which can be systematically adapted and upgraded by the standard owner. A further important consequence of creating a standard that is too high, leading to a failure in the supply side for endorsed product, is that this will frustrate the marketplace, and lead to many inefficiencies and unintended consequences. Increasing consumer demand for endorsed product that is only available in highly limited supply may create issues such as increased levels of illegal fishing, label fraud, demand for similar but non-endorsed substitute species that might be considered to be produced in an environmentally undesirable way and a ‘halo’ effect for other species and management systems that may be unwarranted.

10.4.8 Fixed versus flexible standard? Where standards are expressed in a general way, and are more correctly considered to be guidelines for certifiers/verifiers (such as the MSC Principles and Criteria) rather than a definitive standard, the standard is left flexible and open to interpretation. This is risky, because different certifiers may interpret the standard in different ways, leading to inconsistent verification outcomes. For example, a fishery assessed under a flexible standard may be considered to be sustainable and well managed even though it kills hundreds of protected seals as bycatch, and this may be inconsistent with consumer expectations about seafood sustainability (see Chapter 18). Standards that are fixed risk being too narrow in scope, for example, an inflexible standard may dictate focus on a specific narrow set of issues, and ventures seeking

BLBK019-Ward

228

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

certification may simply ‘shop around’ for an ecolabel that does not expose any of their performance weaknesses in that set of issues. However, this risk is perhaps less than that posed by a flexible standard, because where a standard is fixed consumers can at least determine what standard lies behind an ecolabel. A fixed standard that properly addresses each of the five sustainability issues and meets community norms of performance expectations for each issue (as discussed above) is likely to be the most effective form of standard for a high-quality seafood incentive programme, depending on the quality of the verification system (see below). To avoid stagnation, a fixed standard would need to be kept under close scrutiny and revised/updated as necessary to incorporate the latest technical knowledge, and to reflect changes in community norms and marketplace perceptions. The advantage of flexible standards is that they can be customised to apply to many specific circumstances of fishery or aquaculture ventures, but the major disadvantage is that the standard owner is not able to ensure that a flexible standard is applied equally and is unbiased in all circumstances, because this becomes a decision of the certifier. Certifiers are influenced by many other factors, and not least the need to remain in business themselves, so the way in which they interpret a flexible standard may be open to influence and dispute. The failure of certifiers to apply a robust and unbiased verification process may prove to be a major problem for a seafood assessment programme, because this will erode consumer confidence in the verification system, and ultimately create confusion in the minds of consumers and downgrade the credibility of the ecolabel. At the finest level of decision making within all verification systems, irrespective of fixed or flexible standards, some form of expert judgement is required by the certifier/verifier. Both fixed and flexible standards can only be robustly verified if they are strongly supported by verification systems that clearly set out the rules for how decisions are to be made in relation to each decision element of the standard (including how to treat information gaps and uncertainties). Where the standard is flexible, the verification system must also specify the detail of the processes and rules under which the decision elements of the system will be derived from the flexible standard. For both fixed and flexible standards, the verification system must also set out the form of decision process to be used in awarding a grade, mark or outcome at the finest level of the decision elements (such as the level of performance indicator in the MSC system). In situations where the standard is flexible and the verification system is open to certifier interpretation, the outcome of a certification assessment is not likely to be robust, again leading to issues with the credibility of the ecolabelling programme in the minds of consumers (Ghazoul 2001, Auld & Bull 2003).

10.4.9 Normative standard Sustainability standards are set for specific purposes, and by different organisations to deliver against specific parts of their mandate. However, where the incentive

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

229

programme is focused on ecological sustainability and involves consumer purchasing power, no matter what the endorsement claims, the inference is always that the endorsed product is a better choice because it in some way is produced in a more environmentally responsible manner. It is thus important to ensure that the inferred objectives of a seafood sustainability programme are addressed by the standard as well as the explicit objectives encoded into the standard. Therefore, a standard for ecological sustainability of seafood will generally be expected to reflect community norms in any relevant ecological matters. For example, the bycatch, or serious impacts on the behaviour, of endangered species may normally be considered to be non-sustainable by community standards in the US and in some parts of Europe. Therefore, any credible standard designed to apply to products in the US and European countries would express this as a minimum level of performance that had to be achieved in order to carry the product endorsement. Establishing what the community norms are in respect to specific issues (such as bycatch of protected species) is a vexed process. It is, however, important for market-based incentives to appeal to consumers who will be sensitive to the product endorsement and respond with their purchasing choices, so it is clear that establishing the community expectations of what constitutes sustainability is a key part of setting a seafood sustainability standard. In addition, there are some trade-offs that may need to be encoded into the standard to ensure consumer-pull is created. For example, the control of the standard by science and technical matters may need to be tempered with the reality of consumer trust and motivation: ‘. . . our analysis provides underlying evidence that trust may act as a fundamental factor influencing the acceptability of environmental standards. Stakeholders, who are generally marginalized by decision-making processes – and especially those interested in having the behaviour of other actors regulated, as opposed to their own – are more apt to support initiatives that facilitate their participation and develop non-flexible rules, regardless of the whether technical experts feel that the resulting standards are effective’ (Auld & Bull 2003). The issues of sustainability are often technical in nature (such as stock assessment models, ecological interactions) and there is a considerable requirement in the best incentive programmes for a technically based assessment for verification of compliance (Phillips et al. 2003). However, it is clear that the standard should be informed and supported by technical knowledge, but not prescribed or driven in scientific or technical terms alone. The form of the standard, and the way it is constructed and expressed, dictates the way in which scientific opinion and expertise is used in the assessment/verification process. If the standard is expressed in a highly technical format, the assessment processes will be driven by scientists rather than consumers and other stakeholders (Auld & Bull 2003). This may be the appropriate balance for some incentives or programmes (such as those applied within an industry) and for some specific fisheries and aquaculture ventures, but in many situations, science and technical input should support the assessment, not control the standard. This does not mean that

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

230

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

the standard should not be based on the best available technical knowledge, but the technical analysis of knowledge should be applied in an appropriate way. This is important because, amongst other reasons (below), there is a risk that the increasingly reductionist nature of the scientific process, and scientific opinion, will divert the focus of an assessment (and possibly the standard depending on how it is constructed) towards the scientific challenges of the day, rather than the significant sustainability issues for the industry and the product. If this occurs, it will reduce the credibility of the endorsement and the incentive programme as a whole (Auld & Bull 2003).

10.5 Verification Seafood ecolabelling programmes may choose to focus on either a broad range of issues, or on a narrow set of specific issues of relevance to particular markets or seafood industries. Some, such as the ‘dolphin-safe’ claim, are applied to tuna and other pelagic species that are caught in nets, while others focus on broader environmental issues, such as the Marine Stewardship Program’s claim of ‘well managed and sustainable’ for wild-capture fisheries. Underpinning all of the assessments is a ‘model’, or an approach, that is specified in the standard and in procedures to be used in verifying if a fishery or producer meets the standard. The verification model varies across the different programmes, but without a clearly defined approach to verification there may be inconsistencies between assessments within a single programme, and the programme may be accused of applying their standard inconsistently between products or producers. In the case of seafood sustainability, there are three fundamental dimensions of the problem to be assessed within the verification process – the ecological system within which fishing or production takes place, the impacts of the fishing or production venture on that system and the concept of sustainability in the use of the natural resources used or affected in the process of capture or production (the five issues of Section 10.2 above). An ideal verification model will attempt to ensure that verification assesses activities of the fishery or producer in each of these dimensions relative to the standard in a manner that is repeatable, equivalent and consistent each time it is applied, no matter what type of fishery or aquaculture situation is being assessed. In assessing ecological sustainability of a fishery or an aquaculture venture, the following six ecological aspects of the fishery or venture should be assessed within the verification:

r What level of information is available and used within the management system? r Have the risks from the fishery/aquaculture activities been determined, and the impacts assessed/verified in the fishery?

r Have appropriate strategies been devised and implemented to avoid or mitigate the impact of the risks?

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

231

r Have the desired outcomes (ecological/biological) been determined and achieved?

r Is there research, monitoring and evaluation deployed in support of the activities, for continual improvement and adaptive management?

r Are stakeholders involved in the processes of management, to ensure community norms prevail? Verification should provide for a consistent approach to assessment of each of these six basic elements of the decision-making process. A prescription for verification should ensure that the verification properly assesses how well the fishery or producer meets the standard, as well as prescribing how the criteria and performance indicators, weighting and grading/scoring, and the synthesis and reporting process are to be used within the verification process. The verification model described above is focused on outcomes, but it also allows for the assessment to include progress towards achieving outcomes that might be considered to be representative of a sustainable fishery. This includes processes and procedures that may be in place in a fishery that will lead to sustainable outcomes within an acceptable timeframe, and research projects that may provide information to enable better analysis of existing issues to be undertaken, to better assess risks and to provide more specific focus for assessment, restoration or mitigation efforts in the fishery. The verification model must specify how each of these important aspects of management should be weighted in the verification process, and identify how the results of the assessment are to be synthesised and reported. The structure of this assessment and verification approach describes how management processes and research support may be best assessed, but there is a risk that any specific fishery being assessed may not attach an appropriate level of importance to a specific aspect to ensure sustainable outcomes can be achieved. For example, although a fishery may have research support programmes in place, and be committing substantial resources to those programmes, they may not be suitably focused on key issues of ecological sustainability. Therefore in the logic of an effective verification approach, specific aspects may need to be weighted to reflect the circumstances of a specific fishery or venture. Normally, an assessment would be more heavily weighted towards the outcomes, since this is the achievement of sustainability, and the management processes, procedures and information/data support would normally be considered to be the important but supporting sets of parameters, consistent with the concept of a balanced standard (section 10.4.5).

10.5.1 Verification cost versus quality The verification by independent third-party certifiers that a fishery or aquaculture venture complies with a sustainability standard is the consumer’s main safeguard against inappropriate awards of certification or ecolabel for a product.

BLBK019-Ward

232

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

Some forms of industry self-assessment or internal assessment by governments or industry associations who may have vested interests in awarding or withholding an ecolabel could be perceived to be weak (see Chapter 1). In such cases, consumers are provided with very little assurance that the products carrying the ecolabel do come from ventures that are sustainable. A weak verification system, no matter how high the standard is, is likely to lead to a weak assessment outcome, which will degrade the credibility of the ecolabel or guide in the marketplace. In one supermarket in Perth, Western Australia, the eight brands of canned tuna on sale in mid-2007 all carried a different form of ‘dolphin-safe’ ecolabel. Each ecolabel was obviously designed to suggest to consumers who may respond to such matters that the tuna contained in the can was caught in a ‘dolphin-friendly’ manner and they could be assured that by purchasing that can, they were not supporting ‘dolphin-unfriendly’ practices (Plate 10.1). Of the eight products, five carried no details on the can, and provided no information on their websites about the dolphinsafe label displayed on the product. Of the three remaining cans, two products (Seakist, John West) are distributed by one company in Australia, and display very similar dolphin-friendly logos, the meaning of which is clearly explained on the company’s website. The third can (Safcol) also has a simple and clear explanation of what the logo on its product stands for. However, no companies provide any details on their cans or websites that would enable a consumer to easily discover the details of the standard and what technical details support the claims, identify the owner of the standard or provide any details about what system might be used for verification. This calls into question the transparency of the standard and the verification system for each of these eight ecolabels. While this does not mean that the tuna in these cans is not ‘dolphin-friendly’, given the tortuous history of dolphin-safe ecolabels and current issues (discussed in Chapter 1), consumers could easily be forgiven for being sceptical about unsupported ecolabels on cans of tuna. It is therefore crucial to any effective and successful seafood incentive programme that it contains a highly robust verification system that is applied when assessing compliance of a venture with the programme’s standard, and that this is transparent and readily available to the discerning consumer. This entails a significant cost for verification of compliance, but given the complexities and the decision systems involved, and the highly technical nature of many criteria and performance indicators upon which the performance of a venture must be graded (Rice 2000, Link 2005), low-cost assessments are likely to lead to non-robust assessment outcomes. The cost of verification creates an incentive to use certification companies that can provide cheap assessments, as is well understood in forestry certification (Ghazoul 2001). If this is achieved using experts with only limited experience of the issues to be assessed, it may lead to weak outcomes where the decisions to be made are highly complex. Possibly worse, to reduce the cost of verification and be able to conduct more assessments, standard owners may be tempted to conduct their own verification using in-house expertise. This, however, may violate the independence of the verification system and there is a risk of reaching a biased outcome.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

233

The choice of experts and certifiers to conduct an assessment has proven to be a vexed issue (Chapter 13). Criteria can be set for the minimum credentials required by assessment teams (such as in the MSC programme), but finding genuinely independent experts with the appropriate expertise can be difficult. This is further complicated when experts from within the same country as the fishery or aquaculture venture operates are appointed as members of an assessment team. Very few scientists can operate without government support and funding, and so there is a high incentive for such experts to ensure as far as possible that any governmentmanaged fishery submitted for assessment does not fail. While there is a natural tendency to expect local experts to have a better understanding of the venture under assessment (Chapter 13), this may not always be appropriate or even a correct assumption. Several experts from certification teams have suffered career impacts by supporting certification assessment outcomes that are viewed as unfavourable by their government agencies. The business model adopted by the MSC programme has encouraged price-based competition between certification companies for securing contracts with capture fisheries to conduction verification assessments. The MSC does not provide a specific pricing structure for verification services delivered by certifiers within the MSC program, and this has led to competition between the main certification companies for securing fishery assessments. An analysis of the performance of the two main companies that have assessed and certified most of the MSC-certified fisheries shows that one company consistently awards more generous scores on environmental performance indicators than the second company. In the first 20 fisheries certified within the MSC programme, one certifier awarded a median score of 80 on all the environmental performance indicators (all Principle 2 scores within nine certified fisheries), while a second certifier awarded a statistically significantly higher median score of 90 (all Principle 2 scores within 11 certified fisheries) (Figure 10.1). This suggests the probability

Certifier 1 Certifier 2

Score class Figure 10.1 The frequency distribution for all Principle 2 scores in the MSC-certified fisheries (20) assessed by the two main certifiers.

BLBK019-Ward

234

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

of a systematic bias in the assessment and verification process, and is likely to provide the second certification company with a strong competitive advantage in the business of securing fishery assessment contracts. Whilst this makes good business sense from the certifier’s perspective (being able to offer a strong history of environmental approvals), any bias in the scoring is a substantial issue for the MSC programme. The business model implemented by the MSC – a flexible standard verified through price-competitive assessment contracts negotiated by certifiers directly with the venture wishing to be assessed – leaves this problem as unmanaged, and is likely to pose a significant credibility problem for the MSC ecolabel as it grows in global product coverage. Even the highest quality standard may reach weak outcomes and unreliable awards of the ecolabel if a low-quality verification model is used to assess compliance with the standard. The cost versus quality issue, and the price-based competition between certifiers also leads inexorably to the situation where fishery and aquaculture ventures can ‘shop around’ for a compliant certifier who has a track record of successfully certifying ventures that may have some sustainability issues and have marginal performance in some decision areas. Business models, such as that of the MSC, that encourage price competition amongst certifiers coupled with a weak verification model and with only very limited quality control over the verification system, serve to encourage cost cutting that may lead to quality cutting. Together with certifier ‘shopping’, this risks undermining the quality of assessment outcomes, increasing uncertainty in the minds of consumers and ultimately risks the credibility of the certification/ecolabel.

10.5.2 Grading of performance The verification procedures of some assessment systems result in pass/fail decisions, and in rating and guide programmes they result in three levels of performance: purchase with confidence, purchase with caution or do not purchase (Chapter 1). However, these are narrow performance ‘bands’, and there is considerable merit in having more classes in a seafood performance grading system to secure an increased number of ventures entering into a sustainability programme. Where there is a range of performance in the fisheries or aquaculture ventures likely to be seeking endorsement, the incentive for entry into the system of incremental improvement of ecologically sustainable practices is likely to be greater in a system that offers a range of acceptable performance levels, rather than a single pass/fail (Kaiser & Edwards-Jones 2006). A useful system for seafood sustainability would be a system that combined a range of acceptable performance levels, possibly five, with a standard for each level that defined explicitly the minimum level of performance on each decision element in the standard that is required for the fishery or venture to be admitted to that level of performance. Such performance levels could easily be structured to apply to specific types of industry issues, such as seacages, bottom trawling, long

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

235

lining, water pollution and bycatch. Awarding of certification or an ecolabel would be contingent on the venture being assessed as achieving at least the admission level of performance for every decision element in the standard (see Chapter 16 for a description of such a system). Pass/fail systems inevitably focus attention on the achievement of performance at the defined pass/fail boundary. This can be counter-productive because the absolute nature of the verification (the yes/no decision) can be inconsistent with the problem of achieving sustainability, which is more correctly considered to be a continuum of activities and outcomes. While there may be some circumstances where a venture being assessed under a grading system as described above might also be faced with a single pass/fail decision that decided if the certification was to be awarded, this would occur less frequently than in either numerical scoring systems or in simple pass/fail systems. Like the MSC programme, which uses a numerical scoring system, a grading system with multiple levels of performance would be open to conditional award of the ecolabel, subject to ongoing requirements for upgrading of performance to a higher class.

10.6 Determining success 10.6.1 What to measure? Much of the success of a market-based incentive lies in the market and consumer perceptions of credibility and robustness of the incentive programme. Without a point of competitive market and product differentiation for a programme, created by the credibility of the incentive endorsement, attempts to introduce such incentives to improve practices will not lead to actual sustainability improvements. This linkage between environmental improvements and endorsed seafood products driven by consumer choice is the primary basis for determining if a seafood ecolabelling programme is successful. The obvious first parameter to success is the extent of market acceptance and market penetration of the certified products. However, this alone does not provide the measure of a successful market-based incentive programme because it says nothing about ecological improvements (Muller 2002). Only if the certification/ecolabel programme is supported with a robust standard and a strong verification system can the extent of market penetration be considered to be a useful indicator of ecological achievements. The analysis of ecological achievements of the MSC programme (Agnew et al. 2006) focused on the changes that were considered to have been created through the condition-setting process used in the MSC verification methodology (Chaffee et al. 2003; Chapter 4, and see Chapter 14 for further discussion of this MSC evaluation). The evaluation found four types of gains that could be potentially ascribed to the effects of the MSC programme – institutional, research, operational action and operational result – within the conditions set by certifiers on the sample of ten fisheries evaluated. This is a narrow view of success, since, as recognised by

BLBK019-Ward

236

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

Agnew et al. 2006 (and reported in Chapter 11), many of the environmental improvements that are likely to occur will be prior to the MSC assessment process (during the preliminary assessments that occur within a fishery, and surrounding the pre-assessment stage). Improvements may occur as each venture prepares for MSC assessment and determines what aspects need improvement to be able to meet the level of performance encoded in the MSC Principles and Criteria (Chaffee et al. 2003). The gains reported by Agnew et al. (2006) therefore probably underestimate the real environmental gains directly and indirectly created by the MSC programme. These include the influence on fisheries that may not be planning for MSC certification in the future but wish to maintain parity with MSC-certified fisheries, establishment of credible sustainability models for emulation by other programmes and sector activities (creation of innovation and diffusion, Muller 2002), such as Australia’s Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (see Chapter 1). Limiting an evaluation of success in the MSC programme to the conditions imposed by certifiers also greatly constrains the relative comparison of the importance of such gains because the conditions are set relative to the flexible standard established by each certifier, and this is likely to differ amongst certified fisheries. A condition to be achieved in one fishery is not directly comparable to a condition to be achieved in another fishery in terms of their ecological success. In the MSC evaluation (Agnew et al. 2006), only 18% of the reported gains were considered to be actual ecological outcome gains, and many of these were difficult to uniquely or even substantially attribute to the effects of the MSC programme. Since the success of a programme depends on its robustness at achieving actual environmental improvements and demonstrating such achievements, consumers who do not perceive an incentive programme to be well managed will not consider the endorsements to be credible, and will not therefore support the incentive. For example, demonstrating that the programme is not overly influenced by vested interests or pressures that are not disclosed in the product endorsement, that the endorsement is technically correct and robust and that the decision system and procedures are transparent and accessible will provide support and comfort for consumers who may be inclined to support the incentive (US Consumers Union: www.eco-labels.org/good ecolabel.cfm). It is also important that consumers understand the extent to which the objectives of the incentive programme are in accordance with the issues that need to be resolved within the relevant seafood sector. In other words, is the programme design sufficiently able to address the key environmental issues facing the specific seafood product bearing the label or product endorsement? The success of the programme is also related to how the internal processes operate – is the administration effective and efficient, is the integrity of the programme reasonably protected from external influence? Success of a seafood incentive programme is therefore established by evaluating each of the key attributes of the assessment system to determine if they are in

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

237

place and working well to deliver the objectives and the intended outcomes of the system. Evaluating success will normally cover the two main sets of activities of any such programme – the content (the decision system for fisheries products) and the structure and management of the programme itself. The first relates to the decision system that is used to determine if a fishery activity is in compliance with the standard, and therefore deserves the right to carry the product endorsement. The second aspect is the management, growth and maintenance of the incentive programme itself, including its control, supporters and stakeholder constituency, and the financial and staffing basis of the operation. Both are important areas, and both must be successful for the programme to be effective and maintained. One important aspect of consumer’s perception about the effectiveness of an ecological sustainability programme is the extent to which it is actually supporting, promoting and achieving environmental improvements. Narrowly focused assessments, such as that of the MSC environmental gains (Agnew et al. 2006), will do little to generate consumer support. The MSC analysis, for example, substantially ignores the extent to which the standard itself is set at a level that is appropriate, which is potentially a much more important measure to convince consumers that the ecolabelling programme is achieving environmental improvements.

10.6.2 The decision basis for determining success As a result of the difficulties of defining the meaning of ecological sustainability and the diversity of the world’s fishing and aquaculture ventures, most ecological sustainability assessment systems use criteria and procedures for assessing the sustainability of marine fisheries that are determined uniquely for each fishery or aquaculture venture being assessed. These are sometimes set within broader guiding sustainability principles (May et al. 2003; and see Chapters 4, 16). Despite the basic uncertainties discussed above, the issues of concern (the five core elements of sustainability identified in Section 10.2) have been established, and it is clear that to be successful, a broad assessment of sustainability must at least reflect these issues, and an ecological assessment must assess the environmental aspects of these issues. A high-quality sustainability assessment programme would comprehensively include them within a standard that comprised a set of criteria and related performance indicators for making unambiguous judgements about the compliance of a venture submitted for assessment. For the set of issues within ecological sustainability, based on the criteria established for ecolabels (US Consumers Union: www.eco-labels.org/good ecolabel.cfm) and for the ecological sustainability of seafood more specifically (after Elliott 2000, Gardiner & Viswanathan 2004), the set of performance indicators shown in Table 10.1 will apply to a range of the important aspects of many seafood ecological sustainability certification and ecolabelling programmes.

BLBK019-Ward

238

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

Table 10.1 Criteria and performance indicators to evaluate the ecological performance of a seafood market-based incentive programme. Criterion

Performance indicator

1. Meaningful and verifiable endorsement

1. Objectives of the programme are clear and meaningful

2. Standard is clear and meaningful

3. Standard is balanced, has a high level of technical merit and is achieved

4. The standard is comprehensive and written so that a robust verification of compliance is feasible and achievable 5. Robust information and data support the verification

2. Consistent and clear endorsement

6. Explicit and consistent methodology for verification

7. The standard is written for all relevant fisheries/products that will carry the endorsement

Intent The objectives of the incentive programme are properly constructed and clearly reflect the scope of the environmental issues encompassed by the endorsement The standard against which the venture is assessed should be clear, unambiguous, have a declared scope and a clear relationship with the environmental issues that are present in the venture being assessed, and cover effectively each of the five sustainability issues The standard has an appropriate balance of decision elements that correctly relate to the purported focus of the endorsement, this is properly reflected in the technical basis of the standard, and there is robust evidence that the standard is achieved in certified ventures The standard covers all relevant aspects of venture performance and is sufficiently detailed, so that the verification procedure can reasonably determine if there is compliance, given the usual amount and quality of information available to a certifier The verification is reliable, based on credible data and information about the venture in relation to the standard; information gaps and uncertainty are treated in a precautionary manner The verification design and procedures are explicit, clear, efficient and effective, so that there is a clear and simple statement of compliance or grading, and endorsement of one product has the same meaning as the endorsement of another product The standard applies to all relevant aspects of the venture’s operations that relate to environmental issues that are the subject of the endorsement

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling Table 10.1

239

(continued)

Criterion 3. Transparency

Performance indicator

Intent

8. The institutional and governance structure backing the programme is public domain information

All key aspects of the identity, institutional arrangements and the governance of the incentive programme are freely available, including details of key personnel, the standard, verification system, certifiers, company boards, industry, research and technical advisory systems, and funding sources All the assessments and reports prepared about fishery or producer performance in relation to the standard or the programme are freely available to the public; only confidential financial reports would be exempt To ensure that the potential for motivational bias in the verification process is minimised

9. All assessments and reports prepared to determine compliance with the standard are public domain 4. Independence

5. Public input

10. Compliance of the venture with the standard is verified by an independent third-party certification system 11. The standard-owner and any related organisations are financially independent of seafood products and have no conflicts of interest 12. The public is notified widely of the engagement of a venture with the assessment programme, and outcomes widely publicised 13. Stakeholder input is actively sought from all sectors into the verification process for the purpose of ensuring that community norms are maintained

The organisation owning the standard and implementing the programme should have no cross-links (no common staff or board members etc.) with seafood organisations, nor derive any financial benefit from the sale of endorsed seafood To ensure that there is a broad awareness of the assessment process, and the opportunity for public involvement

To ensure that any interpretations, judgements or decisions made in the verification process can be set in the context of community norms and acceptability

10.6.3 Dealing with uncertainty and gaps in knowledge The issues surrounding the environmental impacts of fishing and aquaculture are highly technical, and many lack detailed information. In most situations, the information is inadequate to make reliable decisions about the nature of impacts, except for the gross impacts (such as gross damage from trawling in sensitive

BLBK019-Ward

240

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

habitats), or to design effective measures to reduce those impacts. However, while the environmental impact issues are probably the most poorly understood, all of the sustainability issues suffer from data and information limitations. These include predictions about the growth of fish stocks, impacts of specific harvest strategies on stocks or on the habitats that are fished, the effect of changing feeding regime in seacages on benthic fauna, or changes to gear types and at-sea product handling procedures. And further, the extent to which a producer or a fishery consistently applies specific improvements, and maintains the standards that are expected by the management system and the consumers can be very difficult to determine with accuracy or precision. So, in setting a standard, conducting a verification or assessing the success of a seafood incentive programme, the way in which issues are handled where there are gaps in key areas of information or high intrinsic levels of uncertainty becomes very important. In this field, the role of science in the verification is to be clear about the levels of uncertainty that may apply to specific aspects of data and information, and to provide for clear boundaries outside of which information and data may not be reliable. Technical knowledge should also be used to provide for research to develop better measures that can cope with uncertainty, and better models to interpret and explore implications of uncertainty and knowledge gaps. In assessing the success of a seafood incentive system, there needs to be clear analysis of how the system deals with substantive gaps in knowledge that may lead to uncertainty about either the details of the standard or the details of knowledge required in the verification process. However, the most robust approach to gaps in knowledge and high levels of uncertainty is to always require the verification process to apply a more conservative judgement to issues where the data are limited or missing, or uncertainty is high. This effectively reverses the burden of proof, so that producers and fishery managers need to demonstrate that their impacts are not exceeding set levels, and ensures that verification takes a suitably cautious approach to protect against false verifications of compliance simply based on lack of appropriate knowledge – a central tenet of the precautionary approach to sustainability (Caddy 1999, de la Mare 2005). Any assessment of the success of an ecolabelling, certification or other forms of incentive programme should therefore always consider the extent to which lack of data and knowledge is treated in this precautionary manner by the verification system, and rank the incentive system performance to reflect this approach to dealing with uncertainty.

10.6.4 Timescales for improvement To be successful, changes towards improved sustainability need to be carried out within the context of any existing management system frameworks. For improvements in environmental practices to be effective and long lasting, they need to be well embedded within the fishery or aquaculture management system. However, achieving this may take many years, depending on the type of change being sought by the certification programme. Some of these changes may be costly, have a big

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

241

impact on profits and business in general, and may need to be managed to minimise impact on employment, local communities and institutional consequences. So while some improvements may be readily achieved within the short term, others will be long-term problems that have to be managed within the existing management frameworks. Also, fishery and aquaculture systems typically have many interlocking facets, and making a change in one aspect may have an impact on other areas, and be difficult to resolve. For example, in a trawl fishery that has a high level of bycatch of a protected species (such as a species of turtle, or seal), it may be feasible to design and implement excluder devices in the nets to either avoid or eject the bycatch species from the nets (DEH 2003). However, this generally will only be readily accepted and adopted in a fishery if the excluder devices can be shown to not greatly affect the catch rate of the target species sought by the fishery or greatly affect profits and returns that could otherwise drive the more marginal fishers out of the fishery. If the returns and benefits potentially available to the industry from securing certification for their products do not clearly outweigh the costs of complying with the programme requirements and the cost of assessment, then there will be a significant resistance to submitting for assessment and certification. To enable such downsides to be both more acceptable and absorbed into business practices, the implementation of any changes imposed on ventures that are seeking certification or ecolabels should be reasonably matched to their capacity for reform, subject to maximum times not being exceeded. Conducting, for example, the research on the excluder devices, demonstrating effects on catch rates, and then revising such rules and procedures that may apply in a fishery to control all the participants can take many years. It is not sufficient to simply demonstrate through research projects that bycatch can be constrained, the fishery management system must itself adopt and apply a set of controls across all participants to ensure that not only is the excluder device fully utilised in the fishery, but that the rules are not applied in a partisan way to the benefit of some fishers and the detriment of others. Securing such agreements may take years in complex or large fisheries. As a result, the timescales for sustainability improvements that have major costs associated with them need to be negotiated, but may take years, and this scale of reform has to be considered in the setting of any expectations about the capacity of an incentive programme to create environmental change. Assessing the success of such changes must therefore recognise the balance to be achieved between the rate of change to be expected by the certification programme and the capacity of a venture to implement such changes in a way that is effective and likely to persist.

10.7 Conclusions Seafood ecological sustainability incentive programmes of all types (certification, ecolabels, ratings and guides) rely heavily for their success on the technical and

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

242

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

public credibility of the endorsement, the standing of the sponsoring organisations and the marketing of the ‘brand’ standing behind the certification. In the future, the success of such programmes will also depend on much more robust assessments of success, and particularly on their success and direct achievement of environmental improvements, which so far have been difficult to demonstrate (Chapter 4). Ecolabelling and certification programmes that have poorly structured or expressed standards have weak assessment systems, and those that do not disclose their sources or assessment procedures bring all seafood sustainability market-based incentive programmes into disrepute. There is a critical need for all programmes to adopt much more consistent and transparent systems so that consumers can develop higher levels of confidence in the various incentive programmes as they begin to mature. The development of a more formal international approach to this problem will be able to set the context for a global governance structure for seafood certification and ecolabelling that properly addresses the issues of performance assessment and success measures. This will benefit all parties, and lead to the improved environmental effectiveness of the market-based incentive model for seafood. To be successful, important issues that remain to be addressed by individual seafood certification and ecolabelling programmes include:

r the development of clear, explicit and non-flexible plain language standards and r r

r r r

r

explanations, so that consumers can know exactly what a product endorsement really means; the need for high-quality data and information, and high quality independent third-party expert judgement upon which verification must be based; the benefits of a graded series of achievements, so that products and ventures can be shown to be tangibly improving their performance, and to encourage lower-performing ventures to nonetheless enter the system for incremental improvement; the imperative for more transparent involvement of stakeholders in standard setting and in verification procedures, to ensure that community norms are applied and maintained; the increasing need to educate consumers about the specific details of endorsements, and their meaning and reliability; the matching of demand-creation incentives (such as launching of new sustainability programmes) to supply-side capacity (the ability to deliver endorsed products to consumers) so that consumer expectations for product availability may be met, reducing the unintended consequences of un-met demand for certified product; careful evaluation of the appropriateness of the ‘business model’ for verification within voluntary certification systems, considering the difficulties of competition amongst certifiers and the incentive for ventures to trade certifiers off against each other for more favourable verification outcomes;

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

243

r the need for an international system of governance and accreditation to apply consistent principles of design and operation to seafood ecolabelling and certification programmes of all types, consistent with the FAO guidelines, and with outreach to ensure consumer awareness of the overarching issues. While there have been a small number of ecological successes documented for seafood ecolabelling systems, there is very little ecological evidence that supports the broad ecological effectiveness of seafood sustainability programmes. As in other sectors, seafood certification, ecolabels and ratings/guides are rapidly developing into market successes, but this is considered by some to be driven by governments and non-government organisations (NGOs) (Gulbrandsen 2006), rather than environmental success. Without much better data and information about their ecological impacts it remains to be seen if ecolabels can continue to secure and maintain consumer support. To provide for more informed analyses of the success of seafood certification and ecolabelling programmes in the future, detailed comparative longitudinal (time-series) evaluations of the ecological impacts of several different types of seafood programmes are needed. Beyond the ecological issues, probably the most outstanding current issue is the need to develop standards and verification processes that relate to the socio-economic issues of seafood sustainability, so that seafood ecolabelling may be able to more robustly address all the relevant issues, including regional and locally relevant standards, and verification processes for seafood sustainability in parts of Asia, Africa and South America. In this sense, the ongoing success of seafood ecolabelling can then be linked to a more comprehensive coverage of the seafood sustainability issues, and enhanced relevance to the global, regional and local needs of the oceans, industries and communities alike.

References Agnew, D., Grieve, C., Orr, P., Parkes, G. & Barker, N. (2006) Environmental benefits resulting from certification against MSC’s principles and criteria for sustainable fishing, 134 pp. Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK. Auld, G. & Bull, G.Q. (2003) The institutional design of forest certification standards initiatives and its influence on the role of science: the case of forest genetic resources. Journal of Environmental Management, 69, 47–62. Beddington, J.R., Agnew, D.J. & Clark, C.W. (2007) Current problems in the management of marine fisheries. Science, 316, 1713–1716. Caddy, J.F. (1999) Fisheries management in the twenty-first century: will new paradigms apply? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 9, 1–43. Caddy, J.F. & Cochrane, K.L. (2001) A review of fisheries management past and present and some future perspectives for the third millennium. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44, 653–682. Caddy, J.F. & Seij, J.C. (2005) This is more difficult than we thought! The responsibility of scientists, managers and stakeholders to mitigate the unsustainability of marine

BLBK019-Ward

244

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B – Biological Sciences, 360, 59–75. Chaffee, C., Leadbitter, D. & Aalders, E. (2003) Seafood evaluation, certification and consumer information. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Eco-Labelling in fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 4–13. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Constable, A.J., de la Mare, W.K., Agnew, D.J., Everson, I. & Miller, D. (2000) Managing fisheries to conserve the Antarctic marine ecosystem: practical implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 778–791. Dahl A.L. (1997) The big picture: comprehensive approaches. Part one – introduction. In: B. Moldan, S. Billharz & R. Matravers (Eds) Sustainability Indicators: Report of the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development, pp. 69–83. John Wiley and Sons, New York. DEH (2003) Assessment of the northern prawn fishery. Australian Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra, Australia. de la Mare, W.K. (2005) Marine ecosystem-based management as a hierarchical control system. Marine Policy, 29, 57–68. Duchene, L. (2004) Eco-buying ups the ante. Seafood Business, 23 (10), 1. Elliott, C. (2000) Forest Certification: A Policy Perspective, pp. 310. CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research), Bogor, Indonesia. Essington, T.E. (2001) The precautionary approach in fisheries management: the devil is in the details. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16, 121–122. FAO (2007) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2006, pp. 162. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Lance Gunderson, L. & Holling, C. (2004) Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, & Systematics, 35, 557–581. Gardiner, P.R. & Viswanathan, K.K. (2004) Ecolabelling and fisheries management, pp. 44. WorldFish Center Studies and Reviews 27, Penang, Malaysia. Ghazoul J. (2001) Barriers to biodiversity conservation in forest certification. Conservation Biology, 15, 315–317. Gislason, H., Sinclair, M., Sainsbury, K. & O’Boyle, R. (2000) Symposium overview: incorporating ecosystem objectives within fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 468–475. Gulbrandsen, L.H. (2006) Creating markets for eco-labelling: are consumers insignificant? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 477–489. High Seas Task Force (2006) Closing the net: stopping illegal fishing on the high seas. Governments of Australia, Canada, Chile, Namibia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, WWF, IUCN and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, pp. 112. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. Hilborn, R., Branch, T.A., Ernest, B., Magnusson, A., Minte-Vera, C.V., Scheuerel, M.D. & Valero, J.L. (2003) State of the world’s fisheries. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 359–399. Jaffry, S., Pickering, H., Ghulam, Y., Whitmarsh, D. & Wattage, P. (2004) Consumer choices for quality and sustainability labelled seafood products in the UK. Food Policy, 29, 215– 228.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:49

Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling

245

Kaiser, M.J. & Edwards-Jones, G. (2006) The role of ecolabeling in fisheries management and conservation. Conservation Biology, 20, 392–398. Kurlansky, M. (1999) Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World, new ed. Vintage/Random House, London, UK. Leadbitter, D. & Ward, T.J. (2007) An evaluation of systems for the integrated assessment of capture fisheries. Marine Policy, 31, 458–469. Link, J.S. (2005) Translation of ecosystem indicators into decision criteria. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62, 569–576. May, B., Leadbitter, D., Sutton, M. & Weber, M. (2003) The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) background, rationale and challenges. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Eco-labelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 14–33. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Muller, E. (2002) Environmental labelling, innovation and the toolbox of environmental policy. Lessons learned from the German Blue Angel Program, pp. 38. Federation of German Consumer Organisations, Berlin. Available at: http://www.blauer-engel.de/ englisch/navigation/body blauer engel.htm [accessed on 19 February 2008]. Myers, R.A. & Worm, B. (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature, 423, 280–283. Myers, R.A. & Worm B. (2005) Extinction, survival or recovery of large predatory fishes. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B – Biological Sciences, 360, 13–20. O’Boyle, R., Sinclair, M., Keizer, P., Lee, K. Ricard, D. & Yeats, P. (2005) Indicators for ecosystem-based management on the Scotian Shelf: bridging the gap between theory and practice. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62, 598–605. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., & Torres Jr, F. (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science, 279, 860–863. Pew Oceans Commission (2003) America’s living oceans: charting a course for sea change. A Report to the Nation. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA, May 2003. Phillips, B., Ward, T. & Chaffee, C. (Eds) (2003) Ecolabelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 196. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Pikitch, E.K., Santora, C., Babcock, E.A., Bakun, A., Bonfil, R., Conover, D.O., Dayton, P., Doukakis, P., Fluharty, D., Heneman, B., Houde, E.D., Link, J., Livingston, P.A., Mangel, M., McAllister, M.K., Pope, J. & Sainsbury, K.J. (2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science, 305, 346–347. RCEP (2004) Turning the tide: addressing the impact of fisheries on the marine environment, 480 pp. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Twenty-fifth Report. Chairman: Sir Tom Blundell. London, UK. Reid, W.V., Mooney, H.A., Cropper, A., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S.R., Chopra, K., Dasgupta, P., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A.K., Hassan, R., Kasperson, R., Leemans, R., May, R.M., McMichael, A.J., Pingali, P., Samper, C., Scholes, R., Watson, R.T., Zakri, A.H., Shidong, Z., Ash, N.J., Bennett, E., Kumar, P., Lee, M.J., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Simons, H., Thonell, J. & Zurek, M.B. (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being synthesis. A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Rice, J.C. (2000) Evaluating fishery impacts using metrics of community structure. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 682–688.

BLBK019-Ward

246

June 25, 2008

9:49

Seafood Ecolabelling

Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J.A., Folkes, C. & Walker, B. (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413, 591–596. Sinclair, M., Arnason, R., Csirke, J., Karnicki, Z., Sigurjonsson, J., Rune Skjoldal, H. & Valdimarsson, G. (2002) Conference report: responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem. Fisheries Research, 58, 255–265. Sutton D. (2003) An unsatisfactory encounter with the MSC – a conservation perspective. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Eco-labelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 114–119. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. US Oceans Commission (2004) An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Washington, DC. Ward, T.J., Heinemann, D. & Evans, N. (2001) The role of marine reserves as fisheries management tools: a review of concepts, evidence and international experience, pp. 192. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia. Ward, T.J., Tarte, D., Hegerl, E.J. & Short K. (2002) Policy proposals and operational guidance for ecosystem-based management of marine capture fisheries, pp. 80. WWF Australia, Sydney. WCED (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. Wennberg, N. & Bjerner, M. (2006) Ecolabelling aquatic products: can consumer power make the management of Southeast Asian fisheries more sustainable? Fish for the People, 4, 2–15. Wessells C.R. (2000) Ecolabeling and international seafood trade: the roles of certification costs and consumers’ willingness to pay. Fisheries Economics Newsletter, 50, 44–49. Worm, B., Sandow, M., Oschlies, A., Heike, K., Lotze, H.K. & Myers, R.A. (2005) Global patterns of predator diversity in the open oceans. Science, 309, 1365–1369.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:54

Chapter 11

Case Study 1: Toothfish – An MSC-Certified Fishery David Agnew

11.1 Introduction The fishery for the South Georgia Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) was certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) as sustainable and well managed in 2004. This chapter discusses and chronicles the assessment process and highlights the various facets of this MSC certification of a complex, and what proved to be a somewhat controversial, fishery. This assessment concerned the bottom longline fishery for Patagonian toothfish (D. eleginoides) stock around South Georgia and Shag Rocks (hereinafter referred to simply as ‘South Georgia’) within the 200 nautical mile (nm) maritime zone of the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (GSGSSI) (Figure 11.1). These waters lie within the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). South Georgia is an overseas territory of the UK, which is a full member of CCAMLR. Conservation policy in the convention area is negotiated by the 24-member commission on the advice of its scientific committee. GSGSSI administers fishing in the territory in accordance with the principles and decisions of CCAMLR. GSGSSI maintains a strong scientific research programme that provides scientific and management advice for management of the marine resources. Patagonian toothfish is a relatively long-lived fish that inhabits the shelf and shelf slope waters around most sub-Antarctic islands and the southern coasts of South America. A closely related species, the Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni), has a similar habitat around the southern Antarctic islands and the Antarctic continent itself, but is not present at South Georgia. Although toothfish live down to 2000 m at South Georgia, the longline fishery concentrates in the depth range 500–1500 m. In order to minimise the potential for interactions and incidental mortality of birds (particularly albatross), the fishery is restricted to the winter period (May–August) and may only set lines at night (Agnew 2004, CCAMLR 2005). In 2000, the Government of SGSSI chose to seek external certification and verification that the South Georgia toothfish fishery was a sustainable fishery meeting SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

247

BLBK019-Ward

248

May 24, 2008

16:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

Figure 11.1 The main fishing ground around South Georgia and Shag Rocks (shaded), the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Maritime Zone, the CCAMLR Convention Area and Subareas, and the 2000-m contour.

the standards of the Marine Stewardship Council. The assessment was contracted to Moody Marine Ltd, an MSC-accredited certification body. Following a preassessment report that indicated that an assessment would be successful, the full assessment started in May 2001, and was conducted by a team of five experts working for the certifier. The team examined 76 different indicators of the sustainability of the fishery. The assessment team visited the fishery at South Georgia, reviewed all relevant literature and interviewed and received submissions from the fishery managers (the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands), the UK government and scientific organisations and environmental non-governmental organisations. The report of the assessment was reviewed by four independent peer reviewers (www.msc.org; Holt et al. 2004). In October 2002, the board of the certification body determined that the fishery did meet the MSC standards for a sustainable fishery and should be certified. In accordance with the MSC appeals process, the National Environmental Trust and The Antarctica Project (NET and TAP), supported by some other organisations, submitted an objection to this decision in November 2002, citing several points of disagreement with the Moody Marine Ltd assessment. These points were answered

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:54

Case Study 1: Toothfish – An MSC-Certified Fishery

249

by Moody Marine in December, but in January 2003 the objectors persisted with their objection, alleging that Moody Marine had failed to respond to their objections. The MSC upheld the objection and convened an appeals panel consisting of five internationally renowned fisheries experts who were independent of the original assessment team to consider whether there were any grounds for the objection by NET and TAP and to decide finally if the fishery met the MSC criteria. The objections panel produced its draft report in October 2003 and made its final decision recommending that the fishery should be certified as a sustainable fishery on 16 March 2004. In its report (Cavalcanti et al. 2004), the panel noted that while it dismissed some of the objections as unwarranted, it found others to be legitimate and, as a result, recommended that the certification body impose some new and revised conditions on the fishery. Overall, the fishery achieved scores of 89 for Principle 1, 81 for Principle 2 and 90 for Principle 3 of the MSC Principles and Criteria (Holt et al. 2004; www.msc.org). At the time when the South Georgia Patagonian toothfish fishery was certified, only seven other fisheries had been certified under the MSC programme. They were Western Australia rock lobster, Thames Blackwater herring, Alaska salmon, New Zealand hoki, Burry Inlet cockles, Western Handline mackerel and Loch Torridon Nephrops. Of these, only one fishery (the New Zealand hoki) had also been submitted to a full appeals panel review, and in that case also, the fishery was certified with a further revised set of conditions developed and imposed by the appeal panel.

11.2 Substantive issues The pre-assessment report identified the following issues as potential problems for certification: the lack of knowledge of benthic environment in the area; lack of knowledge of effects of bycatch on affected populations; and the extent and significance of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing within the GSGSSI Maritime Zone. During the main assessment, the issue of stock identity and the robustness of the assessment model also developed as issues of concern. Information on benthos was limited to occasional comments in observer reports. Although the assessment concluded that the impact of longlines on benthos was probably minimal, there was concern that occasionally deep-water corals were recovered by the fishing gear. A condition was eventually placed on the fishery to establish the extent and likely impact of longline fishing on the benthos of the South Georgia shelf and slope. Another concern of the assessment team was that South Georgia toothfish population would turn out to be an extension of the Patagonian shelf population. Evidence from tagging experiments and parasitological research suggested that rates of exchange between the Patagonian shelf and South Georgia were negligible but, at the time of assessment, most genetic studies had focused on the Indian Ocean toothfish

BLBK019-Ward

250

May 24, 2008

16:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

and the Atlantic genetic studies were incomplete. Oceanographic data suggested that the natural path for egg and larval dispersal from Burdwood Bank (a spawning area of the Patagonian shelf populations, situated to the west of the Convention Area – see Figure 11.1) was northwards in the Falklands Current. All surface currents originating in South Georgia flow northeast. The assessment team concluded that the South Georgia population was probably a discrete stock (Holt et al. 2004). Questions over the discreteness of the stock were raised by the objectors and considered further by the objections panel (Cavalcanti et al. 2004). A study of southwest Atlantic toothfish genetics was completed in 2003. Unfortunately, because it had been unavailable to the assessment team, the objections panel took the view that they could not consider this paper and they created a new certification condition. Since that time, results of both the 2003 study (Shaw et al. 2004) and similar work undertaken by the British Antarctic Survey (Rogers et al. 2006) have become available. Both studies examined mitochondrial DNA and nuclear microsatellites and agree that there is a very clear genetic separation of toothfish from the Patagonian shelf (including the Scotia ridge outside the CCAMLR area) from toothfish at South Georgia and Shag Rocks. The conclusion is that the passage of the Antarctic Polar Front and the presence of deep-water troughs between these regions are major barriers to genetic exchange. Since 1992 Antarctic fisheries for toothfish have been plagued by IUU fishing by both members and non-members of CCAMLR. IUU fishing developed around South Georgia in 1992, but after several arrests and an increase in patrol presence, in early 1996 the IUU vessels moved to hitherto unexploited areas in the Indian Ocean. Assessments of IUU catch of toothfish, and the associated mortality of seabirds, have been made by CCAMLR since 1994, but the results are usually highly uncertain. Given the serious implications of IUU fishing, not only for the toothfish but also for the associated marine ecosystem, Agnew & Kirkwood (2005) developed a robust statistical approach to its estimation, the first application of such a method in CCAMLR waters. That study, and subsequent monitoring, has confirmed that apart from a brief return in 1999 and 2000, IUU fishing has been at negligible levels at South Georgia since 1996. Evidence presented to the assessment team showed that the bycatch of birds in the legitimate fishery had been significantly reduced, through the use of mitigation measures and good fishing practices, to negligible levels (generally fewer than 20 birds are killed each year, and in 2006 this number dropped to zero). In contrast, the early fishery was estimated to have been catching up to 6000 birds a year. Concerns were raised by stakeholders, however, about the number of hooks that were discarded in offal and toothfish heads that could be ingested by birds. Concern was also expressed about the effect of the fishery on skates and rays taken as bycatch. The GSGSSI rajid research programme was relatively new at the time of the assessment, and sufficient data to assess the impact of the fishery on their populations was not available. Conditions were therefore added to address these points.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:54

Case Study 1: Toothfish – An MSC-Certified Fishery

251

The original assessment report and decision in September 2002 that the fishery should be certified specified seven conditions and three recommendations. The seven conditions were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

annual surveillance visits, continuation of surveillance and monitoring levels, research towards determination of sustainable bycatch rates of rajids, codification of management procedures, independent review of CCAMLR toothfish management procedures, development of a method for taking account of IUU catch in total allowable catch (TAC) allocation and 7. estimate and reduce hooks discarded in offal. The three recommendations were as follows: 1. retrospective testing of robustness of decision rules in assessments, 2. develop an ecosystem model for the fishery and 3. identify areas of complex benthic habitat. The objections panel modified condition 1 to require that TACs continue to be set using the CCAMLR precautionary approach. They inserted a new condition 2 requiring more research on and confirmation of stock identity. They expanded the research requirements for rajids (the previous condition 3) and effectively elevated recommendations 2 and 3 to conditions requiring research on ecosystem relations of toothfish and benthic impacts of longlining. The development of a full ecosystem model was recognised to be very difficult and remained a recommendation. Two new recommendations were added, both suggesting that the assessment model be further developed (Cavalcanti et al. 2004).

11.3 The objection The toothfish fishery suffered from being assessed at a time when the MSC was reorganising its objections procedure in light of previous experience. The ‘rules of the game’ changed substantially during the assessment procedure, and, as far as the client was concerned, this change was managed very poorly by the MSC. In June 2002 the certifier was finalising the draft report and preparing to send it out to peer reviewers when it was informed of a new objections procedure (MSC interim objections procedure as of May 2002 – now contained in MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology, Version 6, September 2006), which would be applicable to all fisheries undergoing certification with immediate effect. This fundamental change to MSC procedure neither was discussed in advance with GSGSSI, although it was obvious that it would have major implications for the certification of that fishery if an objection was raised, nor was GSGSSI even informed that such reorganisation was taking place.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

252

16:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

The implementation of the new objections procedure was managed poorly, but the procedure was much clearer about process than the previous one. Nevertheless, the South Georgia fishery was the first in which it was used, and this exposed several fundamental problems. The most serious of these was the burden that it placed on the MSC to oversee and fund the process. The procedure required that within a period of 21 days following the publication of the determination on the MSC website (in this case, 7 October 2002), any party that had previously provided input to the assessment team and/or the certification body in regard to an evaluation could send a written statement of intent to lodge an objection. Within 30 days of that initial statement of intent being acknowledged as received by the MSC and the certification body, the objecting party had to send a detailed objection to the certification body. The certification body was required to respond in detail to the objection within 30 days of its submission. If an objecting party was dissatisfied with the certification body’s response, then it might file a further objection to the determination within 14 working days. Objections could, and still can, be made on merit or procedural grounds and must follow the requirements of the MSC Objections Form. A critical part of this form is the section dealing with a merits objection. Merits objections relate to concerns that the assessment team has ignored, failed to obtain, or misinterpreted information. The objector is asked to ‘identify the issue(s) within the final report you believe meet or fail to meet one or more of the MSC’s principles and criteria for sustainable fishing by omission of information or misinterpretation of information’ and ‘for each issue identified, . . . please explain your rationale and/or evidence . . . [and] provide any supporting information that was available at the time of the original assessment you believe has not been used and is required in order to reach a proper decision’ (MSC Objections Form Version 2, April 2004). This is the latest version of the form. The requirements were stronger in the 2002 version of the objections form: ‘For each issue identified in question 4.1, please provide the information you believe has not been used and is required in order to reach a proper decision’. In respect of the original objection by NET/TAP (22 November 2002), the following issues were raised:

r Whether the management system used by GSGSSI and CCAMLR is consistent with international understandings and agreements (UNCLOS).

r The sovereignty dispute over South Georgia and the extent to which certification might exacerbate tensions in CCAMLR.

r The inadvisability of certifying one stock in the context of widespread IUU fishing on other stocks of Patagonian toothfish.

r The certification of chain of custody was highly unlikely to be secure, and therefore certification of the fishery was pointless.

r Identification of the two species of toothfish is difficult (however, it must be noted that only one occurs at South Georgia).

r The stock assessment method and long-term objectives were unclear.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:54

Case Study 1: Toothfish – An MSC-Certified Fishery

253

r Concern that other fisheries, such as a pot fishery, might also take significant quantities of toothfish. Some of these, such as chain-of-custody issue, the wider context of IUU fishing on other toothfish stocks and the pot fishery were clearly outside the remit of the certification and this was confirmed by the objections panel. Furthermore, the objectors neither provided any information that had not already been considered in the assessment, nor did they provide any evidence that information had been ignored or misinterpreted. In the absence of new information, the certifiers could only respond to the objectors with a detailed letter (on 9 December 2002) showing where in their assessment report the various issues had been considered and scored by the assessment team. The objectors were not satisfied that the response had answered their objections and filed a further objection on 4 January 2003. For the further objection, NET and TAP were joined by Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defence Council and the Sierra Club. The MSC objections procedure allows only those parties ‘that previously lodged written submissions to the certification body during the certification process and/or attended stakeholder meetings to which they were invited’ to raise merit objections, but allows any party (regardless of prior participation in the certification process) to file briefs in support of a permitted merit objection. It is silent, however, on whether objectors should remain as originally lodged until they are ‘allowed’ by the MSC, or whether the objectors should remain the same in each case. Of the five organisations listed on the further objection, only NET and TAP had raised the original objection, and only NET, TAP and Greenpeace had participated in the assessment process. The other major non-governmental organisations that had participated in the process, WWF and BirdLife International were noticeably absent from the objection and the further objection. In a final twist, the further objection introduced a series of new issues, including the issue of ray bycatch. This had not been mentioned in the original objection, and in any case was already subject to a condition of certification. There was a new allegation that CCAMLR’s decision-making process was compromised by the ‘political accommodation’ between Argentina and the UK, that the certification had not considered other CCAMLR areas such as subarea 48.2 or 48.4 and that the certification had not considered the effect of any new longliner building on capacity in the fishery (Cavalcanti et al. 2004). The MSC has a duty under the objections procedure to respond to the objecting party regarding the renewed objection and dismiss the objection if it determines it to be patently frivolous or otherwise spurious. As detailed above, there were problems with the objections in the case of this fishery – they did not provide any new information or evidence and they were not internally consistent. These issues were not considered by the MSC, which simply referred the complete issue, including the additional points raised in the further objection, to the objections panel.

BLBK019-Ward

254

May 24, 2008

16:54

Seafood Ecolabelling Table 11.1

Timeline for the certification of South Georgia toothfish.

Pre-assessment Assessment Determination Objection procedure Objection panel review Final decision and certification of the fishery management system Chain-of-custody certification

Oct–Dec 2000 May 2001–Sep 2002 7 Oct 2002 Oct 2002–Jan 2003 Mar 2003–Mar 2004 16 March 2004 25 May 2005

The deliberations of the panel were thorough and fair, and their final decision justified. Nevertheless, the objections procedure delayed certification of the fishery for 18 months, from October 2002 to March 2004 (Table 11.1). The case pointed out the fundamental inability of the MSC to decide on the merits of a further objection. It was quite obviously incapable of directing the sort of resources necessary for an assessment of whether the objection is ‘patently frivolous or otherwise spurious’, even to the extent of the procedural issues mentioned above. Furthermore, there was no financial disincentive to bringing an objection, since the considerable costs of administering the objection and convening the panel were borne by the MSC. These shortcomings were recognised by the Food and Agriculture Organization Committee on Fisheries which adopted ‘guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries’ in 2005, requiring a complaints procedure to be independent of the standard-setting organisation and paid for by the complainant. The MSC has now set up a structure to oversee objections that conform to these principles (see Chapter 4). In response to the objections to panel findings, the certification body made appropriate changes to its report and certified the fishery in March 2004. Reactions to the certification announcement were mixed. The Commissioner of South Georgia and Governor of the Falkland Islands, Mr Howard Pearce, welcomed the certification saying ‘The Government of South Georgia has invested considerable resources in managing its toothfish stock so as to ensure long-term sustainability of the species and the best possible protection of the marine ecosystem. We are delighted to have this commitment recognised by the Marine Stewardship Council’. Simon Cripps, Director of WWF’s Global Marine Programme, stated, ‘The decision recognises that the South Georgia toothfish authorities are making a serious effort to manage their fishery wisely. The MSC programme creates a mechanism for rewarding good fisheries like this with a competitive advantage in the marketplace. We applaud the South Georgia authorities for participating in the MSC process and for agreeing to take additional steps to improve their fishery. At the same time, this decision sends a clear signal to fleets that are catching toothfish illegally, that distinction in the marketplace is now possible. The illegal fisheries now have a choice to clean up their act or face losing their markets’ (WWF press release, 16 March 2004: ‘MSC Certification of South Georgia Toothfish Important Step for Industry’).

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:54

Case Study 1: Toothfish – An MSC-Certified Fishery

255

However, NET were not satisfied: ‘This fishery should never have even been considered for certification’, said Gerald Leape, Vice President for Marine Conservation, NET and member of the MSC stakeholder council. ‘Chain of custody alone is a potential Achilles heel preventing the consumer from ever really knowing if the MSC labelled fish is truly legally caught’ (NET press release, 16 March 2004: ‘South Georgian Toothfish Fishery Certified by Marine Stewardship Council, Environmental Group Disagrees with Decision’).

11.4 Chain of custody As Gerald Leape pointed out, the 2004 certification was granted for the fishery management system only and not for onward chain of custody. Chain-ofcustody certification was granted in May 2005 following introduction of a group scheme as defined in the MSC certification methodology, operated by GSGSSI (www.msc.org/assets/docs/South Georgia toothfish/Addendum 1 Update to FC certificate May2005.pdf). Members of the group scheme are required to demonstrate that they have no links to any companies or entities, either through direct or beneficial ownership, that have or are engaged in IUU fishing for toothfish and demonstrate that they have committed no serious infractions of CCAMLR or GSGSSI conservation measures or laws in the last season in which they fished. They must have the necessary additional equipment to participate in the group scheme and demonstrate through sea trials that the equipment is capable of operation under standard fishing conditions. This equipment is an individual box weighing and labelling scheme, linked to an onboard database with direct communication links to a shore-based database. Vessels are required to undergo inspection prior to commencing fishing operations, to label each box with all relevant aspects of capture and box contents, upload this information daily to the shore-based database, and to submit to end of season weighing of the total catch and random sampling of box labels and contents against the data in the database. The scheme operated by GSGSSI allows cross-checks to be made between the data recorded on boxes and other data sources, including vessel logbooks, observer and inspection data. Validation of individual box provenance by third parties (e.g. importers, retailers, and consumers) is possible via queries to GSGSSI. By the end of the 2006 fishing season, several companies fishing at South Georgia had achieved full compliance with the rigorous group scheme requirements, had established full chain of custody for all their supply side operations, and were supplying product to US retailers. Whole Foods Market (the first US retailer to sell MSClabelled toothfish) commented: ‘The Patagonian toothfish fishers in South Georgia have worked hard to prove their fishing practices are sustainable, and it’s great that they have met the MSC’s independent environmental standard’ (press release, 18 September 2006: www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company/pr 09-25-06.html).

BLBK019-Ward

256

May 24, 2008

16:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

11.5 Current status of certification Ten conditions were set for the fishery to maintain continuing certification as follows: 1. surveillance: annual surveillance visits, including determining that catch limits for subarea 48.3 continue to be set to achieve long-term management objectives that are at least as precautionary as those that are currently used, and a review of research plans; 2. confirmation of stock identity: existing and new studies of genetics and tagging to be undertaken in order to demonstrate that the toothfish stock at South Georgia is sufficiently discrete that locally implemented management measures alone should be sufficient to ensure the sustainability of this stock; 3. fishery surveillance and IUU monitoring to continue at current levels; 4. development of a research plan to obtain reliable information on fishery-related impacts on rajid populations; 5. codification of management procedures; 6. request an independent review of CCAMLR toothfish management procedures; 7. develop a method for taking account of IUU catch in TAC allocation; 8. estimate the numbers of hooks discarded in offal and take action to reduce the problem; 9. initiate research into the ecosystem relationships of toothfish (predators and prey); 10. initiate research into locating areas of complex benthic habitat, particularly biogenic features, within the areas exploited by fishers. At the time of writing conditions 5–8 had been closed by the certification body as acceptably completed, and work on the other conditions was progressing satisfactorily (surveillance report no. 2, May 2006; posted 15 June 2006: www.msc.org/assets/docs/South Georgia toothfish/SurvRep2.pdf). One of the strengths of the MSC assessment process for this fishery was the wide external review that all aspects of the fishery were subjected to – by the assessment team, the peer review team and the objection panel. As soon as GSGSSI was aware of the concerns of the certifiers on a particular topic, it was able to initiate corrective action. For instance, the review of IUU fishing activity demonstrated that since 2000 there had been little or no activity around South Georgia. Nevertheless, surveillance coverage was significantly increased during the assessment period, starting in 2001, and has continued to increase each year since then. Even before approaching certification, GSGSSI had become concerned about rajid bycatch in the fishery and in 2000 established a detailed monitoring programme which has now produced a series of important conservation results (Endicott et al. 2000, Endicott & Agnew 2002). In 2001, GSGSSI introduced its first measure to limit ray bycatch in the fishery, requiring vessels to relocate to new fishing

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:54

Case Study 1: Toothfish – An MSC-Certified Fishery

257

grounds at least 5 nm distant if they caught more than 1 tonne of rays in a haul. This was implemented in the 2001 fishing season and was adopted by CCAMLR in October 2001 for application to all subsequent fishing seasons. Bycatch limits were also introduced that year. Stimulated by research at South Georgia, CCAMLR introduced a measure to cut all rays off lines at the water surface to improve their discard survivorship. Thus, the monitoring and research programme was initiated by GSGSSI during certification and well before the date of the final certification decision. Although there was recorded information on the occurrence of benthos on hooks and the discard of hooks in offal available before certification, the fishery had not recognised the potential importance of these issues. Up to that time, attention had been focussed on the essential and successful development of measures to avoid the incidental mortality of endangered species of birds. However, once the two additional issues were noted GSGSSI initiated a detailed monitoring programme (on hooks in offal in 2002 and on impacts on benthos in 2004) and changes to CCAMLR conservation measures to request that fish hooks not be discarded with offal. Trials of methods to do this, in 2003, were successful and so, once again at the instigation of the UK, CCAMLR created a mandatory condition that vessels retain all hooks from discarded offal, effective from the 2004 fishing season.

11.6 Conclusions As with most fisheries that are interested in submitting for MSC assessment, there were a variety of reasons that GSGSSI sought certification. First and foremost, GSGSSI has a conservation responsibility to the whole South Georgia ecosystem, including its marine ecosystem (Agnew 2004). Certification was seen as an extremely valuable external review of its stewardship. It was also seen as a means of reviewing and strengthening the management systems of CCAMLR. The CCAMLR Catch Document Scheme was designed to eliminate IUU trade in toothfish whilst preserving an acceptance that there are many different toothfish stocks, each managed differently. Certification of the South Georgia toothfish fishery has considerably strengthened the catch documentation scheme. The MSC process did, as expected, define a number of areas where science and management systems at South Georgia would benefit from improvement. Improvements have, in many cases, already been delivered – for instance in the areas of estimation of IUU fishing, reduction of discards of hooks in offal improved assessment and understanding of benthic impacts. Certification of the fishery necessarily also included some component of review of the wider CCAMLR management system. This has also proved valuable and has resulted in the development of new assessment techniques for toothfish throughout the whole Antarctic (CCAMLR 2006), as well as wider application of ray and seabird mitigation measures, hook discard regulations, and studies on benthic impacts throughout the Antarctic.

BLBK019-Ward

258

May 24, 2008

16:54

Seafood Ecolabelling

References Agnew, D.J. (2004) Fishing South: The History and Management of South Georgia Fisheries. Penna Press, St Albans, UK. Agnew, D.J. & Kirkwood, G.P. (2005) A statistical method for analysing the extent of IUU fishing in CCAMLR waters: application to subarea 48.3. CCAMLR Science, 12, 119–141. Cavalcanti, H., Hilborn, R., Jensen, T., Pikitch, E. & Punt, A. (2004) Final report and decision of the independent objections panel concerning proposed certification of the South Georgia Patagonian toothfish longline fishery pursuant to the marine stewardship council’s principles and criteria for sustainable fishing. Marine Stewardship Council, London. Available at: www.msc.org [accessed on 22 February 2008]. Ccamlr, M. (2005) Schedule of Conservation Measures in force 2005/06. CCAMLR, Hobart, Australia. Ccamlr, R. (2006) Report of the working group on fish stock assessment 2006. In: Report of the 25th Meeting of the Scientific Committee, Annex 5, CCAMLR, Hobart, Australia. Endicott, M. & Agnew, D.J. (2002) Conserving rajid populations in the Antarctic. NAFO Scientific Council Meeting, September 2002 Doc. No. SCR 02/98. Endicott, M., Agnew, D.J. & Nolan, C.P. (2000) Examination of the skate by-catch from around South Georgia from one vessel in the 2000 longline toothfish season. CCAMLR Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment Meeting, October 2000 Doc. No. WG-FSA00/59. Holt, T., Medley, P., Rice, J., Cooper, J. & Hough, A. (2004) Certification report for South Georgia Patagonian toothfish longline fishery. Moody Marine Ltd. Report 006/03; 51 pp. Available at: www.msc.org [accessed on 22 February 2008]. Shaw, P.W., Arkhipkin, A.I. & Al-Khairulla, H. (2004) Genetic structuring of Patagonian toothfish populations in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean: the effect of the Antarctic Polar Front and deep-water troughs as barriers to genetic exchange. Molecular Ecology, 13, 3293–3303. Rogers, A.D., Morley, S., Fitzcharles, E., Jarvis, K. & Belchier, M. (2006) Genetic structure of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) populations on the Patagonian Shelf and Atlantic and western Indian Ocean sectors of the southern ocean. Marine Biology, 149, 915–924.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:55

Chapter 12

Case Study 2: The Baja California, Mexico, Lobster Fishery Bruce Phillips, Luis Bourill´on and Mario Ramade

12.1 Introduction The spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) fishery in Baja California, Mexico, was successful in obtaining Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) endorsement as a sustainable and well-managed fishery in 2005. The P. interruptus spiny lobster fishery in Baja California dates from the early 1900s (Ayala et al. 1988, Vega & Lluch-Cota 1992, Vega et al. 1996). Also known as red lobster or California lobster, P. interruptus is fished in small quantities both commercially and recreationally in California in the US, but in Mexico this species is only fished by commercial fishermen in the area from the US border to Margarita Island, near the tip of the Baja California Peninsula. However, the main portion of the stock is between Cedros Island and Punta Abreojos along the Pacific coast of Mexico between 28.6◦ N 115.5◦ W to 26.6◦ N 113.2◦ W. Most of this marine area is part of the Vizca´ıno Biosphere Reserve (except Cedros Island) and is contained within a 5 km band along the shore. The fishing grounds are delimited in exclusive fishing zones that are shown in Figure 12.1. In Baja California, 26 Mexico fishing cooperatives exploit P. interruptus. However, 9 of these cooperatives operating in the central region of the Peninsula, from Punta Abreojos to Isla Cedros, catch around 80% of the total catch of this species. These cooperatives are part of the Federaci´on Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de Baja California (FEDECOOP), who was the client for the MSC assessment on behalf of the cooperatives. About 500 fishers are members of the 9 fishing cooperatives distributed in 10 villages along the coast of the fishing area, and they fish using fishing skiffs up to 7 m in length powered with outboard motors. Lobsters are caught by setting baited wire traps that are fitted with escape gaps to allow undersized lobsters to escape. Details of the number of members, boats and traps at the time of the MSC assessment are given in Table 12.1.

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

259

BLBK019-Ward

260

May 24, 2008

16:55

Seafood Ecolabelling

Figure 12.1

Fishing zones in central Baja California, Mexico.

Live lobsters are transported by boat to reception centres distributed along the coast. About 90% of the catch is sold alive; but some are steam-cooked whole, fresh whole-packed in boxes and frozen or processed as frozen lobster tails. The main market for live Baja California lobster is in Asia. The lobsters are taken under bond to San Diego and Los Angeles, and then trans-shipped by air mainly to Taiwan. The remaining 10% of the catch is sold domestically, mainly to restaurants in Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Table 12.1

Cooperatives in operation (2002) in the central zone in Baja California.

Name of the cooperative Pescadores Nacionales de Abulon Buzos y Pescadores La Purisima Bahia Tortugas Emancipacion California de San Ignacio Leyes de Reforma Progreso Punta Abreojos Total

Number of Number of boats Number of Traps members authorised boats worked authorised Traps worked 167

22

19

1 480

1 480

86 96 87 77 195

24 36 22 33 20

18 30 21 29 16

1 440 2 500 1 320 1 760 1 040

1 170 1 950 1 260 1 595 960

185 210 191

18 40 45

18 28 41

1 045 2 600 2 700

900 1 960 2 665

1 294

260

228

15 885

13 940

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:55

Case Study 2: The Baja California, Mexico, Lobster Fishery

261

12.2 Management system The management structure for the Baja California lobster fishery is based on the fishing law, a Federal Mexico law, which considers all the aquatic resources including several other species of spiny lobster along the Mexican Pacific and Atlantic coasts. The Ministry of SAGARPA (Secretar´ıa de Agricultura, Ganader´ıa, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentaci´on), through the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Commission (CONAPESCA), is responsible for the management of fisheries in the whole of Mexico. SAGARPA considers the scientific advice from the National Institute of Fisheries (Instituto Nacional de la Pesca – INP) based on the information generated by the different regional centres in the country. The decision-making office (CONAPESCA) is in charge of issuing policies, permits, management regulations and the enforcement of rules. The management of fishing resources is also considered within the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Program for the period 2000–2006, in which the main objective is the sustainable management of all the resources being exploited within the Mexican Exclusive Economic Zone and for aquaculture. Following the policies of the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Program, there is a norms committee for the elaboration and changes in the management regulations. There is also a fisheries committee at state level where all fishing issues are treated and recommendations are presented to the corresponding authorities of CONAPESCA. The management of the different spiny lobster fisheries exploited in Mexican waters is regulated by decree in the Mexican Official Norm (NOM-006-PESC1993). This encompasses the management regulations for the species in the Mexican Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and those in the Baja California Peninsula as well as in the Gulf of California. The Baja California lobster fishery does not have a separate formal management plan, but it is specifically included in the overall plan for all Mexican resources. Management involves a combination of limited entry, strict delineation of cooperative’s exclusive fishing areas and community-based self-regulatory measures. Regulatory measures in place include area closures, minimum legal size, fishing gear restriction and protection of gravid female lobsters. It should be noted that the fisheries in this area are part of a co-management system of collaboration of the organisation of the cooperatives, the FEDECOOP, and the management, enforcement agencies and the fishers. The presence of CONAPESCA officials is very limited on this isolated coastline. In fact, it is only due to local surveillance by the cooperatives (paid for with their own funds) on a permanent basis during all the days/nights of the year that illegal fishing of the resources of the area is controlled (Agnew et al. 2006). Abalone grounds in the lobster fishing areas are very attractive for poachers. In addition, the strong internal regulations and control that cooperatives have over their members ensures that rules are respected and these internal regulations can exceed the government restrictions on the fishery. For example, all cooperatives use less than the authorised number of boats and traps

BLBK019-Ward

262

May 24, 2008

16:55

Seafood Ecolabelling

(see Table 12.1); therefore, fishing effort on the lobster resource is kept below the level authorised by the government. The same situation occurs with quotas for abalone – to better protect the stocks, the cooperatives set quotas that are below the government-authorised level. A special feature of the cooperatives is that there is a biologist or technician employed at each of the 9 cooperatives to assist with data collection and to provide advice and assistance to the cooperative, to the Federation and to the government agencies.

12.3 Status of the stock In the 1970s and 1980s, the total catches of P. interruptus from the Pacific coast of Mexico was around 1300 tonnes, except for the period 1980–1982, when a peak in catches occurred. Catches of individual cooperatives vary considerably (data are available but not illustrated here), but the total is relatively stable across the whole area. However, the catches do vary with lobster availability and oceanographic conditions. Catches during the 2000–2001 season in most cooperatives were at the highest level ever recorded. Catches by commercial fishers in Mexico and the US have been monitored for long periods and usable data on catches and the number of traps are available since 1928 for Mexico, and since 1916 for the US. Catches over 14 years available at the time of the assessment are shown in Figure 12.2. The Mexican government regulations established a management goal to consolidate the sustainability of this fishery by optimising its regulatory mechanisms. These mechanisms include reviewing and adjusting periodically the seasonal scheme by zone and species, constantly monitoring and modifying the restrictions on fishing Spiny lobster catch

Baja

USA

2500 Total 1419 1536 1726 1411 1307 1205 1441 1661 1843 1879 1663 1634 2148 1978

2000

1500 Kg

Baja, Year Mexico USA 88 1116 303 89 1204 332 90 1395 331 91 1143 268 92 1044 263 93 971 233 94 1203 238 95 1396 265 96 1519 323 97 1447 423 98 1351 312 99 1404 231 0 1828 320 1 1653 325

1000

500

0 1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

Years

Figure 12.2 Commercial catches of the spiny lobster Panulirus interruptus in Baja California, Mexico, and in California, USA.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:55

Case Study 2: The Baja California, Mexico, Lobster Fishery

263

gear (traps, escape windows, etc.) and increased surveillance to prevent illegal fishing. With these mechanisms, it is expected that the fishery will see an increase in recruitment and consequent production without an increase in fishing effort. The dynamic management model used to monitor this fishery has reference points to maintain biomass of the stock at levels above 50% B0 (above half of its original condition). This model provides alternative management strategies that depend on the state of the stock of the fishery, including levels of uncertainty and climate variability (Vega et al. 2000).

12.4 Why MSC certification was sought In early 2000 the staff of Comunidad y Biodiversidad (COBI) became aware of the existence of the MSC programme and decided to promote fisheries certification of small-scale fisheries in Mexico as a strategy to make new social and economic incentives available to the best managed fisheries in the country. A rapid participatory survey of all fisheries in Mexico’s northwest was conducted to select the best fishery to start the certification process. This survey followed ecological, economic, social political and feasibility criteria, and used a multi-criteria analysis to find the best solution (COBI 2000). The candidate fishery selected was the Baja California lobster fishery in the central area of the Peninsula. As the FEDECOOP was one of the participants in the rapid survey, the idea of pursuing certification was analysed in detail by all the members, and it was decided to enter into pre-assessment immediately. Their reasons to pursue certification were threefold:

r Certification was considered to be an important tool to maintain global competitiveness and to negotiate for governmental support. The Western Australian rock lobster fishery had achieved MSC certification in 2000, and the cooperatives decided to have the same certification to compete in the market of certified lobster products. r Perhaps more strategically important, being certified would give the FEDECOOP and the cooperatives an international recognition of their good stewardship and allow them to exert more political pressure to lobby for more support to maintain the high levels of management being used in the fishery. r Finally, some cooperatives saw a competitive advantage in being certified, allowing exploration of new markets in Europe and the US. Price premium was not an important consideration (discussed further below).

12.5 The MSC assessment The Baja California lobster fishery was assessed by the US-based certification body Scientific Certification Systems and certified in April 2004. The fishery

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

264

16:55

Seafood Ecolabelling

assessment was conducted by Scientific Certification Systems following all MSCrequired processes and protocols (see http://www.msc.org/html/content 465.htm for details) to determine if the fishery complied with the MSC standard. The assessment process was spread over about 18 months because it was difficult to get access to all the relevant and important information on the fishery that was held in the government, academic and industry sources. The assessment process itself involved

r an expert team of four people, all Ph.D. scientists, each with more than a decade of fisheries experience;

r development and dissemination of performance measures for fishery and public comment;

r public and stakeholder comment on fishery management; r public and peer review of draft report and certification recommendations. The certification body, in finding that the fishery did comply with the MSC standard, set a number of conditions, including

r the requirement to conduct a review of ecological risks in the fishery, such as an ecological risk assessment;

r the requirement to provide a strategic research plan that shows how the research for the fishery is planned and conducted over the short term and long term. There are many indicators that show the Baja California lobster fishery is a strongly managed and sustainable fishery. Many of these points come from the fact that this is a small fishery where the fishers in the cooperatives can, on their own, develop and enforce management of the resource and the fishing grounds. The fishers mostly use small 2–3 m fishing boats and set and pull the traps by hand (Plates 12.1 and 12.2). Legislative/regulatory changes are developed after a public discussion process with all stakeholders and only then any such changes are recommended to government with the support of the community.

12.6 The fishery and the market for products since certification The fishery has maintained its performance level since certification, and has successfully completed two annual audits (2005 and 2006, see www.msc.org) to maintain its MSC certification status. The price of the products has remained stable, with no premium price reported, and sales have behaved in a similar fashion to those before certification. The price stability is explained by the fact that Baja California lobster captured by FEDECOOP-affiliated cooperatives had already secured very high prices before certification because it is sold live to Asian markets in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Cooperatives were not as interested in a price premium as they were in opportunities for diversifying their markets. Since Asian markets are not

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:55

Case Study 2: The Baja California, Mexico, Lobster Fishery

265

greatly interested in certified lobster, it is not sold as certified product, and therefore MSC certification did not provide any additional commercial value within their current marketing strategy. The high demand for live lobster in Asian markets during Chinese New Year and other festivities make it possible for the majority of the anticipated lobster production to be pre-sold, sometimes months before it is caught. After the certification was achieved, the FEDECOOP marketing department in collaboration with COBI, WWF and MSC staff worked to open new marketing opportunities in the US, Mexico and Europe, in markets that are more interested in the certified product. Although there was a lot of interest in all of these markets, including from Slow Food members, no purchase arrangements materialised. The main constraints were as follows:

r not enough production that could be made available to new buyers; r price too high for new buyers, because their interest was mostly in product forms other than live lobsters (such as frozen tails);

r a desire only to purchase small volumes of product, making it uneconomical to divert production destined for Asian buyers;

r logistics for distribution channels for retail sales were not available at FEDECOOP, resulting in increasing distribution costs and either increased sales price or diminished returns. Even though MSC certification was not able to either change or modify the current markets, it was very useful to the FEDECOOP and the cooperatives to lobby the Mexican government authorities for increased support. The argument they used was that in order to maintain the management performance needed for continued MSC certification, the cooperatives needed to receive at least the same level of support from the government. As it was explained, the performance levels are in great part due to the exemplary stewardship and the strict property rights arrangements these cooperatives have implemented. However, they need the continued support from authorities to control illegal fishing from poachers (fishers that do not belong to the cooperatives), to authorise the fishing quotas for lobster and other marine resources and the research needed for ongoing management decisions, to provide for the renewal of fishing concessions, and to provide economic support for community services and improved lobster processing for increased marketing opportunities. A direct result of the MSC certification is that government is paying more attention to the demands and requests of FEDECOOP on behalf of affiliated cooperatives since the fishery was certified in 2004. Several pending community development and fisheries projects were approved after that date, including bringing electricity to all coastal communities, modernisation of processing plants, the construction of new holding facilities for live lobsters in Ensenada owned by FEDECOOP and modernisation of fishing equipment. This support has exceeded US$21.2 million (Ramade & Garc´ıa 2005).

BLBK019-Ward

266

May 24, 2008

16:55

Seafood Ecolabelling

12.7 Benefits to the community and the environment The main changes that the fishery has experienced since certification relate to the increased support by government entities to the cooperatives and associated communities. So far there have been two types of advantages. The first involves achieving a better image and reputation within the country and internationally (Agnew et al. 2006). The fisheries social and community characteristics make this international recognition for the current co-management arrangement an incentive for producers and fishing authorities to strive to continually improve the management. As the first fishery in Mexico and Latin America to obtain MSC certification, and as a smallscale fishery, the social organisations (the cooperatives) have secured enhanced political empowerment for their negotiations, both with fishing and environmental authorities (Agnew et al. 2006). FEDECOOP is the only organisation of regional representation to hold a position in the influential Technical Advisory Committee of the CONAPESCA. The fishery has also received acknowledgement both from government authorities as well as from the civil society, especially from nongovernmental organisations devoted to preserving the environment, strengthening the producer’s organisational culture, as well as preserving the fishery resources. The certification carries a lot of weight in justifying the re-issuing of fishing concessions to keep exclusive access to the lobster grounds for two more decades to the cooperatives, because it recognises the good handling and care provided during the period assigned for its commercial exploitation. In the political and financial arena, the certification has strengthened the political management capacity of the cooperatives and FEDECOOP by allowing them to demand government support in order to compete in similar circumstances with the rest of the fisheries worldwide. This has translated in the fulfilment of longheld demands for electricity services for the fishing communities, the beginning of an access to rural road improvements programme and a strong burst of federal support towards the fishery organisation in the form of projects to improve the infrastructure of processing plants, docks, dredging of navigation channels and fleet modernisation.

12.8 Some reflections on the certification MSC certification of the fishery has produced mixed results. Very positive outcomes were related to the improved social recognition for the hard work and professional management that the cooperatives and FEDECOOP built over more than 60 years to manage this and other fisheries in a sustainable fashion. Their stewardship over the fishing resources vested in their responsibility inside their fishing concession is demonstrated by the MSC certification achieved, and by the profitability of their fisheries amidst the problems that other cooperatives in Mexico are facing. Nevertheless, several aspects could have been improved in the process. One important

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:55

Case Study 2: The Baja California, Mexico, Lobster Fishery

267

matter was that more involvement of the membership of the cooperatives would have been preferable because throughout the whole assessment process the certification team and COBI only dealt with the administration boards and the FEDECOOP officials. Those people in turn transferred little information on the details and the potential of certification to their constituencies. As a result fishers knew this was a good thing, but they knew little about what benefits they could expect. The celebration of the certification locally, in the fishing communities, was never undertaken, due to a lack of sponsorship, although there was a petition for this by the fishers. Even in these cooperatives that have good organisation and representative boards, the flow of information could have been improved and stronger support from the fishers themselves would have been secured. It is hard to evaluate how this reflected on the support for better commercialisation of the lobster products within new markets, but the inability to commercialise certified lobster into the market was one of the most frustrating aspects of the process that followed the MSC certification. All groups involved including the cooperatives and FEDECOOP initially considered that certification would make it easier to finalise purchasing agreements. But in reality, the current marketing system provides very good returns and this precluded the development of new markets. While there is a risk of over-dependency on Asian markets and their economy, the existing market synergy is hard to break without enough new clients and sufficient additional volume of certified product. Only in this situation there will be an opportunity for new markets to be developed that pay more for the certified product than for the non-certified lobsters. If there is no price increment, then there is no incentive to develop new markets, particularly when there is no capacity to provide them with certified product that is already selling well into established markets.

References Agnew, D., Grieve, C., Orr, P., Parkes, G. & Barker, N. (2006) Environmental benefits resulting from certification against MSC’s principles & criteria for sustainable fishing. Report by Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd, London, UK. Ayala, Y., Gonz´alez-Avil´es, J.G. & Espinoza-Castro, G. (1988) Biolog´ıa y pesca de langosta en el Pac´ıfico Mexicano. In: Los Recursos Pesqueros del Pa´ıs, pp. 251–286. Secretar´ıa de Pesca, M´exico, D.F. COBI (Comunidad y Biodiversidad) (2000) Community-based sustainable fisheries in Baja California: a pre-investment analysis to start a fisheries certification program. Final Report submitted to Word Wildlife Fund-US, Endangered Seas Campaign, Community Fisheries Program and Word Wildlife Fund-M´exico, Gulf of California Program in Fulfilment of Grants LM98 and SO42. Available at: COBI http://www.cobi.org.mx/ [accessed on 23 February 2008]. Ramade, M. & Garc´ıa R. (2005) A report on market characteristics of the Baja California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus). Fisheries and Commercialization Departments,

BLBK019-Ward

268

May 24, 2008

16:55

Seafood Ecolabelling

Federaci´on Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera Baja California, F.C.L. (FEDECOOP). 17 pp. Vega, V.A. & Lluch-Cota, D.B. (1992) An´alisis de las fluctuaciones en los vol´umenes de langostas (Panul´ırus spp.), del litoral oeste de la Pen´ınsula de Baja California, en relaci´on con el desarrollo hist´orico de la pesquer´ıa y la variabilidad del marco ambiental. En-. Guzm´an del Pr´oo (Ed) Mem, pp. 191–212. Taller lntern. M´exico-Australia sobre reclutamiento de recursos marinos bent´onicos de Baja California. Vega, V.A., Espinoza Castro, G., G´omez Rojo, C. y Sierra Rodr´ıguez P. Estado (2000) Actual de la Pesquer´ıa delangosta de la pen´ınsula de Baja California California. Capitulo de libro “Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en M´exico: Evaluaci´on y manejo 1997–1998” Arenas Fuentes P. & D´ıaz de Le´on A. (Eds) Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. SEMARNAP, M´exico. Vega, V.A., Espinoza, C.G. & G´omez, R.C. (1996) Pesquer´ıa de la langosta (Panulirus spp.). In: V.M. Casas & G. Ponce (Eds) Estudio del Potencial Pesquero y Acu´ıcola de Baja California Sur, pp. 227–261, Vol. ll. SEMARNAP, Gobierno del Estado de Baja California Sur, FAO, UABCS, CIBNOR, CICIMAR, lnst. Nal. de la Pesca y CETMAR.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:59

Chapter 13

Case Study 3: MSC Certification of the Alaska Pollock Fishery Jim Gilmore

13.1 Introduction This chapter examines the experiences of the US Alaska pollock industry in seeking certification of the world’s largest whitefish fishery under the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) programme. The MSC initiative is an ambitious undertaking that intends to provide a single international sustainability standard against which any wild capture fishery, if it is inclined, can be assessed. The global diversity of fish species, fishing methods and management systems, presents an enormous challenge to the MSC as it strives to provide a programme that is practical, consistent and affordable to the range of interested participating fisheries. Although the MSC was formed in 1997, the robustness of the fishery assessment process was not truly tested until early 2001 when environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) objected to the positive certification determination for New Zealand hoki and petitioned the MSC not to allow assessments of the Alaska pollock and South Georgian toothfish fisheries to proceed. Notwithstanding these early efforts by certain NGOs to preclude an Alaska pollock assessment by the MSC programme, the fishery assessment proceeded. The 4-year long Alaska pollock assessment process brought to light more deficiencies in the MSC programme than in the fishery, and the At-sea Processors Association (APA) considers that each of these problem areas needs to be corrected before the Alaska pollock industry can confidently submit the fishery for reassessment in 2010. This chapter identifies and discusses three principal areas of concern that have arisen out of the experience of the Alaska pollock industry with the MSC programme during the extended assessment process. First, the MSC programme cannot achieve reasonable assessment timelines and costs until an adequate number of certification bodies are recruited into the programme. Second, the scoring of fisheries under assessment must be consistent across candidate fisheries and reflect the performance of the fishery against a clear and stable sustainability standard. Third, the MSC must strike a balance between refining its programme through practical experience as opposed to changing its policies and procedures in an effort to enhance its SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

269

BLBK019-Ward

270

May 24, 2008

16:59

Seafood Ecolabelling

standing within the NGO community, particularly the US NGO community. Programme modifications should result in a more predictable, efficient, cost-effective programme, and not an unstable context for decision-making. The matter of market impacts of Alaska pollock certification is covered only briefly in this chapter. The market benefits of seafood ecolabelling are difficult to quantify, and while not a focal point of this chapter, the chapter provides at least a sense of the industry reaction to certification both among producers and buyers. Finally, this chapter covers key aspects of the MSC’s “reform agenda,” – the MSC initiatives undertaken as a reaction to two reviews of the MSC programme funded by private US foundations in 2004. Will new policy directions or programme changes resulting from this re-evaluation of the MSC help or hurt participating fisheries’ efforts to make the certification process more practical, consistent and affordable?

13.2 The At-sea Processors Association The APA (www.atsea.org) is a trade association composed of 7 companies that own and operate 19 US-flagged trawl catcher/processor vessels. These vessels participate primarily in the Alaska pollock fishery and the US West Coast Pacific whiting fishery. APA represents the collective interests of the member companies in the fisheries management process as well as in matters that come before the US Congress. The Alaska pollock fishery is the largest US fishery. APA’s member companies account for more than half of the annual landings and primary processing of Alaska pollock. In 2006, about 1.45 million metric tons (t) of Alaska pollock was landed in the larger Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BS/AI) fishery within the US Exclusive Economic Zone (NMFS 2006a). An additional 68 950 t of Alaska pollock was also harvested within the US zone in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) fishery (NMFS 2006b). APA catcher/processor vessels are precluded by US law from participating in the more modest GOA Alaska pollock fishery. However, the association has acted as the client for the certification of both of these two distinct fishery management units that constitute the Alaska pollock fishery. Overall, Alaska pollock comprises 35% by weight of all fish landed in the US (Figure 13.1). In the autumn of 2000, the Unilever Corporation, a co-founder of the MSC, approached APA about applying to have the Alaska pollock fishery assessed against the MSC sustainability standard. At the time, Unilever was one of the largest, if not the largest, whitefish buyer in the world – the corporation owned such popular brands as Gorton’s, Iglo and Birds Eye. Unilever was committed to sourcing seafood from proven sustainable fisheries, and Alaska pollock was one of the world’s largest fisheries (Figure 13.2) and at that time an important component of Unilever’s fish supply. APA representatives met on several occasions with the MSC to discuss the programme and the prospects for certification of the fishery. The association had reviewed the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing and believed that

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:59

Case Study 3: MSC Certification of the Alaska Pollock Fishery

271

US commerical fish and shellfish harvests – 2005 Contribution of Alaska pollock and Pacific whiting to US commerical fisheries landings

Alaska pollock 35% of US commerical fisheries landings, by weight 1 547 010 metric tons

Pacific whiting 6% of US commerical fisheries landings, by weight 257 156 metric tons

All other US commerical fisheries landings 59% 2 663 007 metric tons

Source: NMFS, Fisheries of the United States, 2005

Figure 13.1

Pollock as a percentage of US fishery landings.

Major world whitefish landings, 2006 1800

1600

1565

1400 In thousands of metric tons

1285 1200

1000 806 800

600

537 464 365

400

355

332

298

285

Hoki

Cape hakes

200

0

US Alaska pollock

Figure 13.2

Non-US pollock

Atlantic cod

South American hakes

Saithe

Pacific cod

Pacific whiting

Haddock

The whitefish landings from the world’s major fisheries in 2006.

BLBK019-Ward

272

May 24, 2008

16:59

Seafood Ecolabelling

the Alaska pollock fishery met or exceeded the MSC standard. The APA member companies agreed to support Unilever’s request that the association submit the Alaska pollock fishery for assessment, and in January 2001, APA informed the MSC that the Alaska pollock fishery was entering full MSC assessment. In moving ahead to meet the clear interest in MSC-certified seafood in the marketplace, APA also believed that certification could help defend against any perceived shortcomings in the management of the fishery resulting from ongoing litigation between several US NGOs and the US government over protection of endangered Steller sea lion populations. In April 1998, Greenpeace, American Oceans Campaign and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit contending that the Alaska pollock fishery was adversely affecting Steller sea lion populations, which were classified as endangered under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1997. The plaintiffs’ principal contention was that fishing for Alaska pollock was concentrated in time and area, and creating food competition with foraging sea lions (Greenpeace v NMFS 1998). During the course of the litigation, the NGOs sought significant restrictions to be placed on the fishery beyond the precautionary measures adopted by the fishery managers. The NGOs’ position garnered some media coverage, particularly regionally, when a US District Court judge issued an injunction against pollock fishing in Steller sea lion critical habitat until federal fishery managers submitted an adequate biological opinion on the effects of the fishery as required under the Endangered Species Act. Since an essential component of MSC certification is an assessment of the fishery’s impact on the environment, APA considered that a third-party validation of the fishery would be important in addressing any public concerns about the Alaska pollock fishery and sea lions.

13.3 The Alaska pollock fishery As noted above, the Alaska pollock fishery is the largest US fishery, and it is the world’s largest whitefish fishery (Figure 13.2). Annual landings in the US BS/AI fishery have ranged from 900 000 t to nearly 1.5 million t over the past 30 years (NMFS 2006c). Annual catches in the GOA pollock fishery over the past 30 years have averaged 109 905 t (NMFS 2006d). Fishery scientists conduct annual bottom trawl stock assessment surveys and biennial echo-integration trawl surveys to determine the size and the age composition of the stocks. Extensive fishery survey research and the collection of fishery-dependent data through a comprehensive onboard federal fishery observer programme provide the data for a sophisticated stock assessment modelling programme. This is used to determine stock size, age composition and other key variables for recommending precautionary harvest levels. Federal fishery managers set catch limits annually for all managed species at or below the level of the acceptable biological catch which is recommended by fishery scientists. Catch limits are enforced through a comprehensive fishery observer programme. The fishery observers record the catch both at-sea on the processing

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:59

Case Study 3: MSC Certification of the Alaska Pollock Fishery

273

vessels and at the onshore processing facilities, and the fishery closes when harvest limits are reached (Oliver 2005). The BS/AI fishery is conducted with mid-water trawl nets, which minimise the effects of fishing on benthic habitat as well as the incidental catch of non-pollock species (Plate 13.1). The catcher/processor fleet utilises 99.5% of the fish landed. Less than 2% of the catch comprises non-pollock species (Pollock Conservation Cooperative and High Seas Catchers’ Cooperative 2007). In addition to APA’s catcher/processor fleet, the fishery is conducted by catcher vessels that deliver fish to mother ship vessels and directly to onshore processors. All BS/AI fishermen and processors participate in fish harvesting cooperatives, which operate in a manner that is similar to individual catch-share programmes (see www.atsea.org for more details). Fishing organised into cooperatives results in more targeted fish harvesting and processing, and this helps to alleviate overcapacity in the fishing fleet, promotes cleaner fishing with less bycatch, and increases the amount of food products made from the fish that are harvested. Alaska pollock is processed into two primary products forms: surimi and fillets. Japan is the most significant market for surimi, and the principal markets for fillettype products are the US and the EU. In the winter months, fish roe, a valuable commodity, is also produced for retail sale. Inedible portions of processed pollock are often used to produce fishmeal and fish oil. Notwithstanding the characteristics of the fishery identified above, some NGOs have been highly critical of the fishery. In addition to asserting that fishing activities compete with Steller sea lions for pollock, NGOs also allege that fishing the dominant species in the ecosystem (the pollock) is damaging the food web overall and harming other species, including northern fur seals (Greenpeace 2006).

13.4 The MSC assessment process – January 2001 to February 2005 The Alaska pollock fishery was the first significant fishery to undergo assessment where the NGO community was very actively involved from the start. In fact, members of the NGO community petitioned the MSC to prevent the fishery from participating in the programme. The NGOs argued that the Alaska pollock fishery was a ‘controversial fishery’ that under the MSC Principles and Criteria could preclude assessment of the fishery. The MSC Principles and Criteria elaborate that ‘outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification’. Stakeholders alleged that ongoing litigation pertaining to the endangered Steller sea lion population met the MSC threshold for barring a fishery from undergoing assessment. The MSC disagreed with the NGOs’ interpretation, and the fishery assessment moved forward, allowing this matter to be considered in detail by the certification body (the MSC-accredited certifier, Scientific Certification Systems, Inc.) as part of the assessment process.

BLBK019-Ward

274

May 24, 2008

16:59

Seafood Ecolabelling

With the agreement of APA, the certification body consulted with stakeholders at numerous steps in the assessment process, well beyond the consultation requirements set out in the MSC’s certification methodology. These additional, voluntary steps to consult the NGO community added considerable time to the process and, very likely, affected the outcome of the certification. For example, the certifier – with the concurrence of APA – sought input from NGO stakeholders about the recruitment of the three-person team of outside experts who would work directly with the independent certifier to evaluate the fishery. The NGOs submitted lists of potential candidates, and in reviewing other proposed candidates, objected to prospective assessment team members from US universities in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, and other possible team members who had a long-term involvement consulting with fishery management authorities on issues relating to Alaska pollock management. The process was delayed as NGO stakeholders sought extensions of deadlines to comment on prospective assessment team members. When this initial stage of the process was finally completed, the certifier had agreed to draw assessment team members from outside the region. The MSC methodology recommended that the certifier consult with stakeholders about the composition of the assessment team, but there was no obligation to accept the objections of the stakeholders if the certifier considered that the required qualifications were met within the team. By choosing the expert assessors from outside the region, the certifier and APA anticipated this would promote goodwill of the NGOs towards the assessment process and an acceptance of the results whatever they might be, but this did not eventuate. Excluding experts for the assessment team from within the region probably resulted in increased costs and delays, as additional time was required to educate panel members unfamiliar with the fishery. More importantly, the decision to recruit team members without experience in the pollock management system probably compromised the quality of the team’s analysis. This is because the assessment became a ‘snapshot in time’ – evaluating the performance of the management authority rather than an assessment based on long-term experience and familiarity with the managers’ record and the fishery’s performance. Moreover, there was no evidence that the early concessions to stakeholder involved fostered goodwill among NGO stakeholders. Instead, environmental stakeholders sought extensions of deadlines at virtually every stage of the process and appealed against the final certification determination of the assessment team. The certification body, working with the three-member assessment panel, developed a comprehensive set of performance indicators (PIs) to evaluate the fishery. Working from the more general MSC Principles and Criteria, the certification body drafted 76 PIs. By contrast, the New Zealand hoki groundfish fishery assessment, which commenced in mid-2000 and was completed in early 2001 just as the Alaska pollock assessment process was beginning, was based on only 31 PIs. One consequence of the rigorous Alaska pollock assessment process was that by 2005, when the New Zealand hoki fishery entered its 5-year reassessment, the fishery was scored against 61 PIs and the reassessment process lasted 18 months – roughly a

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:59

Case Study 3: MSC Certification of the Alaska Pollock Fishery

275

year longer than the original assessment – and that does not include an objection by the New Zealand NGOs that was not resolved until October 2007 when the fishery was eventually re-certified. Each PI is accompanied by three sets of scoring guidelines, one for each of the established scoring benchmarks (60, 80, 100) developed by the assessment team for each PI (see Phillips et al. 2003 for a more detailed description of the MSC assessment methodology). APA submitted a three-volume set of supporting materials to the certification body making the argument that the Alaska pollock fishery exceeded the 80 scoring guidelines for each indicator, which is the benchmark set for an acceptable level of best practices within the MSC programme. Including the links to supporting materials, APA’s submission totalled 10 000 pages. WWF submitted comments generally supportive of the fishery but identified areas where they considered that the performance of the fishery should be approved. Trustees for Alaska, on behalf of other NGOs, submitted lengthy comments asserting that the fishery failed to meet the MSC sustainability standard. The 827-page certification body’s report (www.msc.org/assets/docs/AK Pollock/ BSAIPollock FinalReport 14June04.doc) with its final certification determination includes NGO stakeholders’ comments in the Appendix and quotes APA’s submission liberally throughout the text, indicating an awareness of the stakeholders submissions and, generally speaking, an acceptance of the arguments submitted by the industry. The certification body found that the fishery did comply with the MSC sustainability standard, with a number of matters that required supplementary conditions to address weaknesses, and this was ultimately confirmed in the findings of the objections process.

13.5 Issues encountered by APA in the assessment process 13.5.1 A 4-year long assessment process The Alaska pollock fishery entered the MSC assessment process in January 2001. The certificate for the BS/AI pollock fishery was issued in February 2005. The certificate for the GOA pollock fishery was issued in May 2005. In contrast to the 4-year duration of the Alaska pollock assessment, the original assessments of two other groundfish trawl fisheries conducted earlier were considerably shorter. The original New Zealand hoki fishery assessment was completed in 6 months with vigorous NGO activity and opposition emerging late in the process. The South African hake fishery assessment was completed in 20 months. WWF-South Africa/Birdlife International is the only NGO stakeholder identified in the final report on the hake certification whereas five commercial fishing groups appeared to play significant roles as stakeholders. There is some limited evidence in the final report (www.msc.org/assets/docs/South African hake/Final Report.pd) of the hake assessment that NGO stakeholders’ involvement only played a minor role in the assessment process.

BLBK019-Ward

276

May 24, 2008

16:59

Seafood Ecolabelling

In the pollock assessment, with agreement from APA, the certifier engaged NGO stakeholders early in the process in an effort to be transparent and open as well as to help identify early in the process any areas of stakeholder concern. These wellintentioned efforts did not produce the hoped-for results. Despite exceptional efforts by the certification body to accommodate stakeholder concerns, NGO stakeholders did not accept the final certification determination, including the extensive ‘conditions’ attached to the certification. Conditions are certifier-imposed requirements for supplementary actions pertaining to certain PIs that, when successfully completed, mean that the fishery is achieving a level of performance that is consistent with a score of 80 for the relevant PIs. Stakeholder consultation was not the only factor in this overly long assessment process. A significant part of the delay was due to the workload of the certifier as the number of fisheries entering the programme outstripped the capacity of certification bodies. There were three MSC-accredited certifiers when the Alaska pollock fishery entered assessment in January 2001 but by mid-2007, there were still only four fully accredited certifiers. In that time, the MSC programme has grown from a handful of participating fisheries to the point where the programme has 22 certified fisheries (each requiring an annual audit and 5-year reassessment by a certification body) and 18 fisheries undergoing assessment. Pre-assessments are confidential, so it is not known how many additional fisheries are considering a full assessment in the MSC programme in the near future. It is puzzling that more businesses with fisheries expertise or certification experience have not sought MSC accreditation. The lack of certification bodies available to perform fishery assessments stands in sharp contrast to the tremendous success that the MSC has enjoyed in recruiting a strong class of retailers, food service providers and brand name seafood processors to support the programme, including Whole Foods Markets, Migros, Wal-Mart, Metro Group, Findus, Young’s and Iglo/Birdseye (MSC Annual Report 2005/2006). At the urging of US Alaska and West Coast fisheries, the MSC initiated a programme in late 2006 to reach out to potential certification bodies that may be interested in becoming accredited to assess fisheries to the MSC standard. The success of this effort – and the ability of new certification bodies to provide assessments consistent with experienced certification bodies – will be an important determinant in controlling the cost of assessments for fisheries through competitive bidding among certifiers and providing for the timely completion of fishery assessments.

13.5.2 Subjectivity in scoring One of the most daunting aspects of submitting to an MSC assessment is that if a fishery fails to achieve a score of at least 60 on any single PI, then the fishery fails outright and cannot be certified by the MSC. As mentioned above, if a fishery does not achieve a score of at least 80 on any single PI, the certifier must impose a condition that, when met, will result in the fishery achieving a performance level

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:59

Case Study 3: MSC Certification of the Alaska Pollock Fishery

277

equivalent to the score of 80 for that PI. In 15 PIs, Alaska pollock failed to achieve a score of 80. However, in 12 of the 15 cases, the fishery received a score of 79. APA’s view is that this set of scores demonstrated that the assessment team navigated a contentious process by seeking compromise, perhaps at the expense of a scientific evaluation of the fishery against the PIs. Consistent scores of 79 suggest the assessment team members recognised that the Alaska pollock fishery’s international reputation as a responsibly managed fishery was deserved, but that the team attempted to placate NGO stakeholders by imposing conditions on the fishery. The MSC has been criticised by both client fisheries, including APA, and NGO stakeholders for inconsistent fishery assessments. The MSC has responded with several initiatives intended to address such criticism, and those efforts are discussed in the final section of this chapter. As the Alaska pollock client, APA understood that active US NGO stakeholder participation would likely result in a more thorough examination of the fishery than previous MSC applicant fisheries might have experienced. Indeed, we recognised that raising the bar in the quality of the Alaska pollock assessment established a precedent beneficial to strengthening the MSC programme overall and, from a parochial standpoint, could further enhance customer and consumer confidence in the sustainability of the Alaska pollock resource. However, there is a significant difference between some fishery assessments because of an inconsistent application of the MSC standard (see Chapter 10). In APA’s view, Alaska pollock was held to a sustainability standard that was higher than had been applied to other applicant fisheries up to that time. Few fisheries in the world can match the Alaska pollock fishery when it comes to, among other characteristics, extensive fisheries survey research, sophisticated stock assessment modelling, comprehensive monitoring and enforcement of fishing activities, use of a precautionary approach to management, adoption of marine-protected areas to minimise fishing impacts on the environment, incorporation of ecosystem considerations into management decisions and an open and transparent management system. APA’s experience led us to conclude that the Alaska pollock fishery was not assessed against a fixed standard but against a standard that fluctuated depending upon the expectations of the NGO stakeholder groups and the extent of their influence within the assessment process. The Alaska pollock assessment team’s report, including the proposed conditions, had immediate, adverse ramifications for the MSC. On 22 September 2004, Dr William Hogarth, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the US federal fisheries science and management agency, wrote to the MSC: This letter is to inform the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) that I am directing the Science and Research Directors and Regional Administrators of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to no longer participate in private certification processes of evaluating fisheries against their standards of sustainability, such as performed by

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

278

16:59

Seafood Ecolabelling

the MSC . . . Please note that we have serious concerns with the documents released by the MSC regarding the science and management of the pollock fishery in Alaska. I am asking the Director of the Alaska Science Center to prepare a letter outlining our concerns with the report, which will be sent to you shortly’.

Federal fishery managers were obviously very unimpressed by an overly critical assessment report that appeared to accommodate the positions advanced by the NGOs. The MSC realised quickly that the success of its programme depended on a respectful, collegial working relationship with fishery management agencies. The MSC sought, and received, an audience with the NMFS leadership to calm the waters. As a result, at least one change was made to the MSC’s certification methodology to address this situation. Section 3.4.8 of version 6 of the MSC’s certification methodology (released for certifier use in September 2006) requires that, ‘(T)he certification body shall consult with all relevant entities when setting conditions, if those conditions are likely to require investment of time or money by these entities, or changes to management arrangements or regulations . . . ’ An accompanying footnote defines ‘entities’ to mean ‘all fisheries management or research agencies, authorities or regulating bodies . . . ’.

13.5.3 Retroactive application of new rules In early 2001, a number of NGO stakeholders criticised the New Zealand hoki assessment, including the positive certification determination from the certification body (SGS Product & Process Certification, The Netherlands). The MSC took an active role in seeking to cure the perceived deficiencies identified by the NGOs by developing and applying a more expansive objections procedure. Eventually, the certification of the hoki fishery was found through the objections process to have been a sound decision, although with some additional conditions placed on the fishery. However, the MSC determined that it needed to further revise the procedures through which stakeholders could object to the outcome of assessments. The result was that the MSC posted a revised objections procedure on its website in November 2001, applying the new process retroactively to fisheries such as Alaska pollock that were already engaged in the programme and within an assessment. Both APA and the NGOs involved in the Alaska pollock assessment were displeased – for different reasons – with the new policy that suddenly emerged. The MSC relented and withdrew its revised objections procedure. It proceeded to design yet another objections procedure, suggesting new approaches and soliciting comment from APA and the NGOs opposing the pollock certification. It seemed an unusual step then (and now) that in revising its procedures that the MSC would retroactively impose the new procedures on fisheries that were in mid-assessment. The problem was created by conducting a stakeholder and industry consultation on a new set of rules and simultaneously involving the opposing parties that were

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:59

Case Study 3: MSC Certification of the Alaska Pollock Fishery

279

engaged in an ongoing assessment. Not surprisingly, the outcome – another revised objections procedure published in March 2002 – also appeared to satisfy none of the parties. On 12 March 2002, APA submitted a letter to the MSC formally objecting to the revised policy and the retroactive application of that policy. One substantive concern is that the objections process provides for an inappropriately low threshold for the decision to forward an objection against a certifier’s finding to an appeals panel. The MSC process specifies that a ‘Further Objection’ is forwarded to an appeals panel unless the objection is either ‘patently frivolous’ or ‘spurious’. The result is that a certifier’s determination that reflects the judgment of an independent third-party team of experts, whose composition is determined, in part, through consultations with the fishery client and other stakeholders, can be set aside by a panel that is not involved in the intricacies of the assessment process, is detached from the stakeholder consultation process, and does not have access to the full range of data, information and evidence considered by the assessment team. An architect of the MSC programme and former MSC board member and member of WWF US, Scott Burns, wrote in 2002 about the objections procedure: ‘It is my assumption that the MSC does not want to independently revisit every decision by a certifier – but that it does want the power to correct decisions that are plainly wrong’ (pers.comm. from Scott Burns). Unfortunately, the MSC did not follow Mr Burns’ advice. In the pollock case, NGO stakeholders filed a further objection to the certification recommendation for both the BS/AI and GOA pollock fisheries. The BS/AI objection was filed first. In a 25 September 2004 memorandum from APA to the MSC, the client fishery argued that a further objection was not warranted because the issues brought forward had been identified, discussed and responded at length by the certification body throughout the 4-year duration of the assessment. While a court of law might have found that the extremely low threshold for considering an appeal had been met, a pragmatic MSC board determined otherwise, and the MSC denied the further objection. However, the MSC did convene a panel to hear an appeal on the much smaller GOA pollock fishery, suggesting that, as with the subjective scoring of the assessment team discussed above, political compromise in the MSC programme can be a path of less resistance. Recently, at the continued urging of the US West Coast and Alaska fisheries, the MSC has agreed to again revisit its objections procedure to consider the appropriateness of the current standard and to determine if the process can be streamlined to both reduce costs and shorten the overall certification process. APA is hopeful that this new round of review will also provide a more consistent and defendable approach to the objections procedure, including not substituting the judgement of the duly appointed independent experts with that of a less-well informed panel, and a consistent application of the rules to fisheries already engaged in assessments.

BLBK019-Ward

280

May 24, 2008

16:59

Seafood Ecolabelling

13.6 Alaska pollock and the sustainable seafood marketplace APA member companies are responsible for approximately half of the Alaska pollock that is harvested and undergoes primary processing. Once the fishery certification was completed, APA extended an invitation for all Alaska pollock producers to participate in the benefits of the MSC certification and share the costs going forward. Virtually the entire Alaska pollock sector has now joined the programme. As a result, nearly all of the Alaska pollock production is eligible to carry the MSC logo, and currently pollock accounts for two-thirds of all fish landed worldwide that are eligible to carry the MSC ecolabel (Plate 13.2). A logical place to begin looking at the market impacts of MSC certification of Alaska pollock is within the operations of Unilever. As noted above, Unilever was one of the biggest whitefish buyers in the world market, producing frozen fish products under the Gorton’s brand until 2001 and under the Iglo and Birds Eye brands until 2006. Unilever’s importance as a customer for Alaska pollock producers, and as a co-founder of the MSC with WWF, made a compelling case for APA to apply for certification of the Alaska pollock fishery in 2001. The eventual 2005 certification of Alaska pollock combined with Unilever’s continuing commitment to source products from sustainable fisheries resulted in an increase in Unilever’s purchase of MSC-certified fish from 4% in 2004 to 46% in 2005 (Unilever 2005). Unilever’s well-known Iglo brand, which is widely available in Europe, used only certified Alaska pollock in fish sticks and in certain other frozen fish products sold in Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and France (pers.comm, Dr Dierk Peters, Unilever). The Iglo brand packaging included the MSC logo, which significantly expanded the MSC’s visibility among consumers. However, it should be noted that in 2001 Unilever sold its Gorton’s subsidiary to another of the world’s largest seafood businesses, Japan’s Nippon Suisan Kaisha Ltd., and in August 2006, Permira, an international private equity firm, acquired the Iglo Birds Eye frozen foods from Unilever. Gorton’s products do not employ the MSC logo, but the seafood sustainability commitment on the company’s website features Alaska pollock and identifies the species as Gorton’s ‘most important and primary source of supply’ (www.gortons.com/protecting-our-resources.php). For now, Permira is continuing to source Alaska pollock for its Iglo brand fish sticks and to use the MSC logo on the packaging. Another strong supporter of the MSC programme is Young’s, a leading UK fish brand. In September 2006, Young’s launched a frozen fish fillet product featuring MSC-labelled Alaska pollock under the company’s Chip Shop label, which is Young’s best-selling battered fish product line (Plate 13.3) (www.youngsseafood. co.uk). By March 2007, there were 167 different Alaska pollock products bearing the MSC ecolabel being marketed in 12 countries, predominantly in Europe (www.msc.org). The Metro Group, a multinational retail chain with supermarkets and convenience stores, conducted sustainable seafood promotions in Germany in

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:59

Case Study 3: MSC Certification of the Alaska Pollock Fishery

281

September 2006 and March 2007 that included MSC-labelled Alaska pollock. Also, German retailer Lidl, and fish processor Deutsche See, launched MSC-labelled Alaska pollock products in late 2006 and early 2007. The Swiss fish processor, Coraya, launched five Alaska pollock surimi products in January 2007. Those products are being carried in the supermarket chains Migros and Coop. Also, noteworthy is the promotion by Japanese retailer, Aeon, of Alaska pollock products, including pollock roe, carrying the MSC logo. Given the lead time required to market test products, develop new packaging and plan promotions, it is impressive that so many new initiatives have been undertaken in the 2 years since the pollock fishery was certified. The experiences to date suggest at least two interesting developments. First, Europe appears to be a rapidly maturing market for ecolabelled products. Sustainability might be of equal concern to major seafood purchasers in Asia, Europe and the US, but use of the MSC logo is more prevalent in Europe than it is in the US or Asian markets. Second, Alaska pollock is being increasingly identified by species name in a marketplace that now emphasises sourcing of sustainable products. In the past, packaging was much less likely to identify whitefish by species name. Coincident with the certification of Alaska pollock, the industry formed the Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers (GAPP). GAPP works with major whitefish purchasers to differentiate Alaska pollock from other whitefish species, principally pollock harvested in Russian waters. Russian pollock is often frozen after harvest, shipped to China for processing then re-frozen. A study conducted for GAPP reports that Alaska pollock, which are processed at-sea or onshore and then frozen, are superior to twice-frozen pollock in more than 40 categories, including tenderness, flakiness and flavour (www.alaskapollock.com). MSC certification has provided GAPP the opportunity to complement its message about high quality Alaska pollock with a similarly strong message about sustainability.

13.7 The MSC ‘reform agenda’ As discussed above, the MSC programme has gained good acceptance among major seafood buyers for sustainably produced and certified fish products. However, participating fisheries continue to be concerned about the practicality of the programme. Another area of concern for the MSC is acceptance of the MSC assessments in the NGO community, particularly in the US. Controversy within the NGO community about the real effectiveness of the MSC programme resulted in two separate major evaluations of the MSC in 2004. These assessed the organisational aspects of the MSC, and specifically whether a market-based approach featuring independent, third-party evaluations of fisheries was viable. These two independent evaluations, the ‘Wildhavens’ report (Highleyman et al. 2004) and the ‘Bridgespan’ report (Bridgespan 2004), have significantly influenced the MSC’s direction.

BLBK019-Ward

282

May 24, 2008

16:59

Seafood Ecolabelling

13.7.1 Private foundations and NGO attitudes In January 2004, the Wildhavens report, funded by three foundations and produced by several members of the NGO community, was sharply critical of the MSC, including asserting a lack of US NGO support for the MSC (www.guardian.co.uk/ fish/story/0,7369,1152856,00.html#article continue). The Pew Charitable Trusts was one of the report’s sponsors, and the authors of the report were involved with other Pew initiatives. The Pew Trusts is one of the most active US private foundations that funds lobbying, litigation and other oceans and fisheries advocacy initiatives. Generally speaking, the Pew Trusts’ oceans programme does not emphasise the collaborative, market-based approach embraced by the MSC and its major funder (the Packard Foundation), so the report’s conclusions were not surprising. The Wildhavens report indicated that NGO support for the MSC would continue to be withheld unless the programme was structured in a way that assisted NGO fishery campaigns. The report states ‘(W)e found that MSC certification appears to conflict with some (NGO sponsored) fisheries management reform efforts . . . While it is true that conservationists are not always going to achieve their goals, it is equally true that MSC does not have the ability yet to make the case that certifications will achieve them either. And because of its lack of credibility with the conservation sector, MSC will not be given the benefit of the doubt’. The release of the Bridgespan Group’s report coincided with publication of the Wildhavens report. The Bridgespan report, which was funded in part by the Packard Foundation, was less critical of the MSC and focused on perceived needs to improve programme governance and administration. While both reports appeared to press the NGO community’s agenda for making changes in the MSC programme, the tone of the reports suggested a rivalry of ideas and initiatives between two large philanthropic foundations that are deeply involved in somewhat opposing directions of oceans advocacy. Notwithstanding the differences in tone, the MSC’s current emphasis on a ‘reform agenda’ can be traced back to these foundation-funded reports and the MSC’s position in the NGO community. As a result of these two evaluations, the MSC has undertaken to implement a number of projects under its reform agenda, and the principle initiatives are discussed below.

13.7.2 Clarifying, interpreting or changing the MSC sustainability standard The MSC is currently (2007) engaged in a two-phase ‘Quality and Consistency Project’ purportedly to clarify its sustainability standard (see Chapter 4). The first phase of this project is to develop descriptive ‘intent statements’ that expand upon the original MSC Principles and Criteria. The MSC convened two ‘expert panel workshops’ in June and October 2006 to develop and draft the intent statements. In comments submitted to the MSC, APA challenged the composition of the expert

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:59

Case Study 3: MSC Certification of the Alaska Pollock Fishery

283

panels, which included NGO representatives, consultants, academics, and the MSC, but no participants associated with MSC-certified fisheries. Fishery participants were invited to attend only as observers. The guidelines for observers stated, among other things, ‘Observers will be seated separately from the panel members (not at the table) and will not participate directly in the discussions of the panel members’. While the MSC maintained that the exercise clarifies the MSC sustainability standard, the Alaska pollock fishery disagreed. APA’s comments cited instances where the intent statements unreasonably narrowed the range of management actions acceptable under the existing Principles and Criteria. As a fishery constituent of the programme, APA was concerned that the exclusion of fishery participants resulted in a process that appeared to change the MSC standard to accommodate NGO demands rather than simply clarify the existing standard to remove ambiguity or promote a more consistent application of the standard across fishery assessments. The second phase of the project is described as guidance to ‘create specific operational interpretations, quantitative where possible, for performance indicators and scoring guideposts, perhaps categorised by species groups and/or fishery types’ (MSC 2005). Overall, APA is of the view that the MSC is engaged in this Packard Foundation-funded project that might or might not make the programme more consistent when applied across all fisheries, while carrying with it the unpalatable prospect of altering the established MSC sustainability standard.

13.7.3 The environmental benefits project Another part of the reform agenda is a scheduled two-phase project intended to quantify the environmental benefits in fisheries that have completed the certification process. A report of the first phase of this work, ‘Environmental benefits resulting from certification against MSC’s Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Fishing’ drafted by the MSC and the consulting firm, MRAG Ltd, UK (Agnew et al. 2006), evaluated ten certified fisheries (Alaska pollock was not included). The report claims: ‘All certified fisheries have shown some environmental gain resulting from the certification process’. This effort is clearly aimed at convincing the funding and NGO communities that fishery assessments provide an avenue for fostering improvements in fisheries management and rebutting the concerns in the Wildhavens report that the MSC process is not an effective method of achieving conservation improvements in fisheries. The MSC is pursuing the ‘environmental benefits’ initiative with a second phase, the stated purpose of which is to refine methodologies for quantifying environmental improvements in fisheries as a result of the certification process. As with its project to craft intent statements for the Principles and Criteria, the MSC convened a working group that included a number of members of the NGO community and no representatives of the client fisheries. It might be expected that client fisheries would know as well as anyone what conservation improvements are attributable to MSC participation as opposed to measures instituted as a matter of course by

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

284

16:59

Seafood Ecolabelling

responsible fishery managers or fishery participants. The failure to include the fishery perspective seems at least self-serving on the part of the MSC and clearly calls into question its motives and conclusions.

13.7.4 Continuous improvement of participating fisheries The Wildhavens report recommended that the MSC ‘implement a system to continue to raise the bar for what constitute best practices for new fisheries entering the system at the same time that it develops incentives for already certified fisheries to continuously improve beyond their initial best practices score’. In 2005, the MSC’s roadmap for its Quality and Consistency programme discussed above states: ‘Since its inception the MSC fishery certification program has been underpinned by a conscious commitment to continuous improvement’. However, the term ‘continuous improvement’ appears to be limited to requiring fisheries to achieve and maintain a score of 80 on all relevant performance indicators and not to improve upon scores above 80. The MSC recently reaffirmed that position in a memorandum to client fisheries in which it stated: ‘The MSC does not have a policy intent to continually ratchet up required performance over time. We would expect the standard to change to some degree over time in response to new information about sustainability, especially in the Principle 2 ecosystem area, but only to the extent that such changes are typically reflected by fishery managers in response to new information within their own management systems as part of an adaptive learning process. The Board does intend to have a clear policy statement produced in the first half of 2007 that articulates these ideas’. For client fisheries, the outcome of each of these reform agenda issues discussed above is critically important in determining whether the MSC process will become affordable, predictable and consistent, or whether political tensions, particularly among NGOs, will result in shifting, higher standards, perpetual uncertainty with the assessment process, and escalating costs and risks for fishery participants. The MSC’s consistent, and troubling, approach of including NGOs and excluding client fisheries from policy development on these key matters could be an unfortunate indicator of the direction in which the MSC is heading.

13.7.5 Improving the assessment process for participating fisheries In addition to keeping a watchful eye on the MSC’s reform agenda, APA will continue advocating for basic programme improvements to correct programme flaws as expressed in the Alaska pollock assessment. APA considers that the certification process must improve in the following three critical areas:

r First, prior to the Alaska pollock fishery entering assessment for its 5-year recertification in 2010, the MSC assessment process should be streamlined and

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

16:59

Case Study 3: MSC Certification of the Alaska Pollock Fishery

285

an adequate number of accredited certifiers should be available to participating fisheries both to ensure competitive bidding on assessment costs and timeframe and to ensure sufficient certifier capacity to handle the workload. r Second, the assessment process, including the scoring of fisheries, needs to be more consistent and less subjective and should not vary based on whether or not there is significant NGO stakeholder participation in the process. A critical question will be whether this is the outcome of a well-formed reform agenda or whether the MSC bows to the views expressed in the Wildhavens report that the MSC raise its standard and expect continuous improvement under that standard. r Finally, the MSC’s objections procedure needs to be streamlined, including raising the threshold for a Further Objection so that objections panels are empowered only to correct clear errors by certification bodies and are not substituting the judgment of an objection panel for that of a properly constituted assessment team.

13.8 Conclusions Overall, MSC certification of Alaska pollock has raised the sustainability profile of the pollock fishery, but not without imposing significant costs and causing uncertainty and frustration amongst pollock producers. If the MSC standard is fixed and stable, its processes streamlined and its programme becomes more cost-effective, benefits could be expected to accrue to the MSC, the seafood industry, the oceans and to consumers in due course. In the meantime, the MSC needs to address specific issues, such as those raised above, in order to build confidence within the seafood industry that the market-based incentive system of ecolabelling developed by the MSC can be implemented across all fisheries in a consistent and meaningful manner.

References Agnew, D., Grieve, C., Orr, P., Parkes, G. & Barker, N. (2006) Environmental Benefits Resulting from Certification against MSC’s principles and criteria for Sustainable Fishing, 134 pp. MRAG UK Ltd and Marine Stewardship Council, London. Bridgespan (2004) Fishery Certification, Summary of Analysis and Recommendations, January 27, 2004. The Bridgespan Group; unpublished report to the MSC. 16 pp. Greenpeace (2006) Rethinking sustainability: a new paradigm for fisheries management. Greenpeace, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/presscenter/reports4/rethinking-sustainablity-a-ne [accessed on 22 February 2008]. Greenpeace v NMFS (1998) Greenpeace, American Oceans Campaign, and Sierra Club v. National Marine Fisheries Service, and William M. Daley, Secretary of Commerce, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, April 15, 1998.

BLBK019-Ward

286

May 24, 2008

16:59

Seafood Ecolabelling

Highleyman, S., Amos, A. & Cauley, H. (2004) Wildhavens: an independent assessment of the marine stewardship council. Draft report, January 15, 2004. Unpublished report prepared for the Homeland Foundation, the Oak Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts. 38 pp + apps. MSC (2005) Improving application of the principles and criteria for sustainable fishing: the quality and consistency project – a cornerstone of MSC’s ‘reform agenda’, 22 August 2005. Marine Stewardship Council, London. NMFS (2006a) Bering Sea Aleutian Islands catch report. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska. Available at: www.fakr.noaa.gov/2006/car110 bsai with cdq.pdf [accessed on 22 February 2008]. NMFS (2006b) Gulf of Alaska catch report. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska. Available at: www.fakr.noaa.gov/2006/car110 goa.pdf [accessed on 22 February 2008]. NMFS (2006c) NMFS plan team for the groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Regions. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. NMFS (2006d) NMFS plan team for the groundfish fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Gulf of Alaska. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. Oliver, C. (2005) Testimony of Mr. Chris Oliver, Executive Director of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Resources October 25. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, Alaska. Available at: www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/misc pub/OliverTestimony 1005.pdf [accessed on 22 February 2008]. Phillips, B., Ward, T. & Chaffee, C. (2003) Ecolabelling in Fisheries: What is it all about? 196 pp. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Pollock Conservation Cooperative and High Seas Catchers’ Cooperative (2007) Final joint annual report 2006 to the north pacific fishery management council. Pollock Conservation Cooperative, Seattle, Washington. Unilever (2005) Unilever environmental and social report, 2005. Unilever, London.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:52

Chapter 14

The Marine Stewardship Council and Developing Countries Stefano Ponte

14.1 Introduction In the last couple of decades, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and conservation groups have repeatedly highlighted the plight of over-exploitation of fish stocks around the world and the impact of intensive fishing efforts on the overall aquatic environment. To address these challenges, several fishery management responses have been devised, such as (1) legal instruments, including global conventions and national/local fisheries laws; (2) soft instruments, such as the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; and (3) market and civil society initiatives – including ecolabels, single-attribute certification, report cards and information disclosure on hazard warnings (Allison 2001, Wessells et al. 2001). Ecolabels are seals of approval that transmit environmental information to consumers. They are devised to determine the environmental impact of a product or service from point of production to point of consumption or disposal. Ecolabels are awarded to products that are deemed to have less impact on the environment than ‘functionally equivalent or competitively similar products’ (Wessells et al. 2001, Gardiner and Viswanathan 2004). Fisheries ecolabels can be categorised in three broad groups: (1) first-party labels, developed by individual companies on the basis of their own standards and consisting of a ‘self-declared’ label; (2) second-party labels, developed by industry associations (sometimes with inputs from conservation and consumer groups), applicable to the members’ products, and verified internally or through an external auditor or certifier; and (3) third-party labels, developed by public, private or public–private initiatives, with third-party certification systems in place (Wessells et al. 2001; see Chapter 1). Ecolabelled fishery products are a growing segment of the seafood industry. Their rise relates not only to increased concern with environmental issues, but also to increased competition in the retail sector, prompting a search for additional properties in products that may be able to add profitability and/or market share. The history of voluntary seafood labels before the advent of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) initiative was limited to two single-issue labels, aimed at reducing SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

287

BLBK019-Ward

288

June 25, 2008

9:52

Seafood Ecolabelling

bycatch of dolphin in tuna fishing (Bonanno & Constance 1996) and of turtles in shrimp fishing – neither of these were certified by third parties. In both cases, the main issue was not one of overfishing and overcapacity, but one of animal rights and the protection of endangered species (Allison 2001). In this chapter, the role of ecolabelling systems in developing countries is considered, with specific reference to the MSC’s programme. The general features are highlighted, followed by an elaboration of early criticism of MSC. Then, two of the main problematic issues that MSC is facing are examined: the impact of the initiative on the ‘actual’ sustainability of certified fisheries and the applicability of the MSC standard and procedures in developing countries, especially in small-scale, data-deficient fisheries. Following this, the process of certification of the hake trawl industry in South Africa and its intended and unintended outcomes are discussed based on fieldwork carried out in South Africa in 2004 and 2005 (Ponte 2006). Finally, the chapter concludes by arguing that special flexibilities and systems of compliance with standards are necessary to cater for the needs of developing countries and small-scale, data-deficient fisheries. Transparency, technical assistance and capacity building alone are not sufficient.

14.2 The Marine Stewardship Council initiative 14.2.1 General features The MSC is the main global third-party certified ecolabel programme that covers wild-catch fisheries. It was established in 1996 as a joint initiative of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the world’s largest private non-profit conservation organisation, and Unilever, at the time the world’s largest frozen fish buyer and processor. Unilever operates its own internal evaluation system on sustainable fisheries, but also actively promotes MSC certification among its suppliers. At the MSC launch, Unilever committed to buy fish only from sustainable sources by the year 2005. The MSC became an independent initiative in 1999. The idea behind MSC is to address worldwide decline in fish stocks by awarding sustainably managed fisheries with a certification and a label that can be affixed to retail products (see Chapter 4). MSC certification partly depends on a chain-of-custody system that keeps ‘sustainable’ and ‘other’ fish separate from each other from the point-of-catch to the supermarket shelf or ice display. The MSC allows, via its logo, consumers to promote sustainable fishing through a market-based (rather than regulationbased) mechanism by choosing the labelled product in preference to the unlabelled product (Johnston et al. 2001, Roheim 2003, Jaffry et al. 2004). Certification is granted against a specific MSC standard – ‘Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing’. Submission to an MSC assessment is voluntary, and assessment is carried out by an MSC-accredited third-party certification body. The MSC standard

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:52

The Marine Stewardship Council and Developing Countries

289

is based on three principles, which are elaborated within a number of criteria (MSC 2004a): The status of the target fish stock A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.

Impact of the fishery on the ecosystem Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem . . . on which the fishery depends.

Performance of the fishery management system The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable

At the catch level, certification is awarded to a ‘fishery’, not to individual operators. Individual operators in the trade, processing and retail sectors can apply for chain-of-custody certification and for the use of the MSC logo. Certification is carried out by independent bodies that are accredited by the MSC Accreditation Committee. The certification process starts with a confidential pre-assessment by a certification body for a client or client group. Clients are usually associations of fishing operators that catch and handle one or more species in a specific area. If the results of the pre-assessment are such that the client decides to go ahead with a full assessment, a certification body is selected and an expert assessment team is appointed. This team develops performance indicators and scoring guideposts. Stakeholders can at this point provide feedback on the suitability of these indicators. The fishery is then scored by the expert team against these indicators to produce an aggregated score for each of the three principles. Depending on the aggregate score for each principle, a fishery can be rejected, certified with conditions that need to be addressed within a certain period or certified with no conditions. Certified fisheries are subject to annual audits. After 5 years, they need to be reassessed with a view to possible re-certification (May et al. 2003, MSC 2004b).

14.2.2 Early criticism of MSC The establishment of MSC’s governance structure and the elaboration of its standard drew a heated debate in fish industry circles in the second half of the 1990s. Much

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

290

9:52

Seafood Ecolabelling

of the early discussion can be found in various issues of SAMUDRA Report, a publication of the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), and are summarised in Constance & Bonanno (2000). In short, ICSF and other critical stakeholders questioned the MSC initiative on the basis of:

r the motivations of Unilever in starting it; r the centralised and corporate structure of MSC; r a bias in favour of industrial fisheries and developed country fisheries in particular;

r the lack of consultation with fishers in general and developing country representatives in particular;

r the perception in developing countries that ecolabels constitute technical barriers to trade;

r the financial and human resource costs that achieving certification would entail in developing countries and especially small-scale fisheries; and

r the recognition that the current state of scientific knowledge is no guarantee of sustainability. (SAMUDRA Report issues of July 1996, November 1996, January 1998, December 1998, April 1999, December 2000 and December 2001.) MSC and other supporters of the initiative responded to these criticisms, also in SAMUDRA Report (issues of July 1996, November 1996, July 1997, January 1998 and August 2001), assuring that workshops and consultations were being carried out around the world. MSC also argued that their certification system was being field-tested in various settings, including small-scale fisheries and fisheries in the developing world. The MSC assured fishers that because the scheme was voluntary, it would not be imposed on anyone, and that it would be market neutral and nondiscriminatory. Finally, the MSC claimed that their standard was not going to work against the interests of small-scale fishers because it would promote, among other things, socially responsible fishing. The MSC revised its governance structure in 2000 to create two new groups reporting to the board of trustees – its executive decision-making body (then including developing country members and a fishery economist) – the technical advisory board and the stakeholder council. The technical advisory board provides advice on technical, scientific and quasi-judicial issues to the board of trustees (Cummins 2004). It comprises 13 members, mostly fishery and ecological scientists, experts on chain of custody and processing, but only two natural resource/fishery economists and no other social scientist. The stakeholder council represents specific interests, grouped under eight categories represented by 28 individuals. Among these, there is a ‘developing nation group’ represented by three academics (from Brazil, Mexico and Nigeria) and a ‘catch-sector interest group’ with a representative from South Africa occupying one of the seven seats. Even though MSC has been fashioned after the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (established in 1993, also with input from WWF and other conservation

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:52

The Marine Stewardship Council and Developing Countries

291

groups), the FSC is an open-member organisation, while the MSC structure is ‘significantly different and more corporate. Its managerial structure is designed to insulate the Board of Trustees from the political influence of civil society actors’ (Gale & Haward 2004). Gale and Haward tentatively argue that WWF, having learnt from the FSC experience, decided to promote a less inclusive and more efficient governance structure for MSC that could keep up with a fast-moving business environment. However, this very insulation meant that MSC in its formative years was not particularly responsive to the needs of developing country fisheries, and within these, of small-scale ones in particular.

14.2.3 New challenges In the 2000s, criticism of the MSC initiative has coalesced around two main issues: (1) the actual sustainability of certified fisheries and (2) a failure to certify a significant number of developing country fisheries and to adapt the standard to small-scale, data-poor fisheries. Sustainability A first line of recent criticism of MSC has come from conservation groups arguing that MSC-certified fisheries are not sustainably managed in reality. The New Zealand hoki fishery is at the centre of this criticism (together with South Georgia toothfish and Alaska salmon and pollock – not discussed here, but see SAMUDRA Report, March 2004). The Royal New Zealand Forest and Bird Society (Forest and Bird), a conservation group based in New Zealand, appealed against the certification of the hoki fishery in 2001 arguing that the fishery was ‘clearly unsustainable’ (see Chapter 18). A formal MSC dispute panel was formed in 2002 and confirmed the certification outcome, although it raised issues in relation to the impact of the fishery on the surrounding environment. In 2001, the total allowable catch (TAC) for hoki was 250 000 tonnes. By 2004, the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries had to cut down the TAC to 100 000 tonnes following reports of rapidly decreasing stocks. Forest and Bird called on MSC to withdraw its certification of the hoki fishery due to the dramatic decrease in stocks. The Hoki Fishery Management Company, supported by the MSC auditors, responded that it was actually a sign of proper management that the TAC had been cut, and that poor recruitment and consequent reduced stocks was most likely due to environmental factors rather than fishing impacts. In 2005, the fishery came up for assessment in view of possible re-certification. As a result of this assessment, the auditors concluded that the ‘the management of the commercial New Zealand hoki fishery complies overall with the MSC Principles and Criteria’ and recommended the issuance of the ‘certificate pending the final approval . . . of an action plan to meet all Corrective Action Requests (CARs) . . . and clearance of all required MSC Objections Procedures’ (MSC 2006). This happened despite a peer reviewer (although not the fisheries expert peer reviewer) noting that:

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

292

9:52

Seafood Ecolabelling

The fishery 1) has been or is very likely to have been experiencing overfishing for some time, 2) is depleted or very near depleted, and 3) is not likely to experience significant recovery based on the model projections and lack of a rebuilding plan. Therefore, I would suggest that a passing score on Principle 1 is largely unjustified (MSC 2006).

To this, the assessment team responded that: Principle 1 relates to avoiding over-fishing and depletion of the exploited population, but also to modifying fishing practices so that there is demonstrable recovery. In its evaluation of the fishery, the team provides standards in relation to the level to which recovery should occur (both target and limit). Furthermore, the team notes that the catch limit has been reduced and fishing practices modified to promote recovery, although it is much too soon to determine whether recovery is occurring at a reasonable rate and there is no formal recovery plan (MSC 2006).

The revised final report of July 2006 contains the same wording in the conclusion. At the same time, MSC has admitted an appeal to the proposed hoki certification based on the stock issues and environmental matters. While the objection procedure runs its course, the hoki industry continues to hold MSC certification, via extensions granted to extend the original certification until the present objections procedure is completed. However, New Zealand hoki is just one of the 22 certified fisheries, so not too much should be made of one case. A further picture of the environmental benefits arising from MSC certification was made available in May 2006 (Agnew et al. 2006). In this study commissioned by MSC, 10 certified fisheries were examined, all of which had been subject to at least one post-certification audit. In relation to these fisheries, 62 certification conditions were examined to determine whether they could be assessed quantitatively and whether they could ultimately lead to environmental benefits. The study identified eight instances of ‘no gain’ (there was no category for ‘deterioration’) and 89 environmental gains. However, these gains are of very different nature – 29 were ‘institutional gains’ that could lead to environmental benefits (thus, these are hypothetical, or conditional, gains), and the same can be said of the 27 instances of ‘research gains’. The 17 ‘operational action’ gains are activities in the fishery (such as new regulations) that are expected to lead to environmental gains, but for which there is no automatic link. The most desirable gains, ‘operational result’ gains, amounted to 16 instances – within these 16 instances, only 8 (the same number of ‘no gain’ cases) were judged to be most likely stimulated (or partially stimulated) by the certification process (Agnew et al. 2006). In short, the Agnew et al. (2006) study paints a mixed picture of the environmental impact of the MSC programme. The authors also highlight some lessons learnt, two of which are particularly interesting: (1) the biggest gains seem to arise in areas where conditions for certification were attached – thus one could argue for

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:52

The Marine Stewardship Council and Developing Countries

293

stricter certification processes; and (2) the authors argue that ‘difficult fisheries’ should be encouraged to apply for MSC certification, because they are the ones where certification is likely to create the biggest environmental gains. This creates a dilemma for MSC: on the one hand, certification is deemed to be a good pedagogical tool for all fisheries, and the worse the fishery, the higher the potential gains. On the other hand, placing stricter certification conditions to lead to higher environmental gains makes it more difficult to be certified and thus decreases the incentive for all fisheries to apply (and especially ‘difficult fisheries’). If fisheries do not apply, the market coverage of MSC-labelled products cannot expand further. In the end, there is a trade-off between market spread and environmental gain in the MSC programme. Developing country, small-scale and data-deficient fisheries A second line of criticism of the MSC concerns the failure to certify developing country fisheries, especially small-scale ones. Linked to this concern are issues of compliance, certification costs and shortcomings of scientific data. As of early 2007, of the 22 fisheries that have been certified by the MSC, only 3 developing country fisheries have been certified (South African hake, Mexican Baja Red Rock Lobster (see Chapter 12) and Patagonia Scallop (Argentina)), and two are undergoing certification (Gulf of California (Mexico) sardine and Chilean hake). All these fisheries are located in upper-middle-income countries. In the early years of operation, the MSC did not pay much attention to developing country needs despite the early warnings. Representatives from developing countries were only invited to one consultative meeting in London. Out of about ten workshops that were carried out to present the initiative to various fisheries, only one took place in a developing country (South Africa). Barriers to achieving MSC certification in developing countries range from institutional weakness (lack of know-how) to financial costs (MSC does not provide funding, although it facilitates contacts with potential funders). Recently, a ‘Sustainable Fisheries Fund’ has been set up, independently from MSC, to help developing country fisheries to go through the certification process. However, the fund can only make small grants to ‘help ensure broad based stakeholder input into fishery assessments . . . It will not be in a position to support large-scale research projects’ (SAMUDRA Report July 2002). The costs of MSC certification to the client industry can be broken down in three components: (1) pre-assessment, (2) fishery assessment and (3) annual audits. Preassessment costs range from a few thousand US dollars to over US$20 000. Direct costs for a full assessment have varied between under US$35 000 for a small, simple fishery to almost US$350 000 for a large, complex fishery. Other costs related to MSC certification are the cost of chain-of-custody assessment and logo licensing. The cost of chain-of-custody certification varies with size and complexity of the

BLBK019-Ward

294

June 25, 2008

9:52

Seafood Ecolabelling

supply chain. MSC estimates of the cost range between US$1000 and 5000. Offproduct use of the logo is granted under a licence agreement with MSC’s trading company, MSCI. The fee for on-product use of the logo is US$2000 for companies under a US$1 million annual turnover, otherwise 0.1% value of sales (source: interviews with MSC officers and South African hake operators; Ponte 2006). The overall cost of obtaining certification depends on the nature of the problems uncovered in the assessment and the corrective actions that have to be undertaken. Most MSC products are processed seafood preparations. Retailers are generally able to push certification-related costs upstream to processors. The last article on MSC that appeared in SAMUDRA Report (July 2004, in response to an article by MSC in the March 2004 issue) highlights that financial arrangements for certification are left to private negotiation between clients and certification agencies, and calls for MSC to channel such negotiations, which would allow discounts and ‘soft’ payment options for selected fisheries. Another problem with certification costs is that only four certifiers are currently accredited to carry out fishery certification (and one of those has only assessed a single fishery), providing a small base for competitive pricing. Three more agencies are accredited for chain-of-custody certification only; six agencies are undergoing accreditation for fishery and/or chain-of-custody accreditation. MSC has finally recognised that its standard and certification procedures are not geared towards the realities of developing country fisheries, especially small-scale and data-deficient ones. A special programme (MSC Developing World Fisheries Programme) is seeking to improve the awareness of MSC in developing countries and to develop guidelines for the assessment of these fisheries. The project aims to develop guidance for certifiers on the use of ‘unorthodox’ information on fisheries, such as traditional ecological knowledge and management systems. It also aims to use a ‘risk-based’ approach to qualitatively evaluate fisheries. However, the aim is developing ‘operational interpretations’ to assess small-scale and data-deficient fisheries, rather than writing a separate standard (MSC 2004c). It is too early to assess the likely impact of such a programme. However, funding will not be available to developing country fisheries directly from MSC – MSC refers interested parties to the Sustainable Fisheries Fund (administered by the Resources Legacy Fund), the WWF Community Fisheries Grants and the Sea Change Investment Fund. Failure to certify developing country, small-scale fisheries in the short-to-medium term would seriously dent the legitimacy of the MSC programme. Outreach workshops in developing countries are obviously important, but without large funding to support research and institutional improvements, the current MSC standard will not be achievable by a large majority of fisheries in developing countries, and especially in least developed countries. A stimulus for revising the MSC system in a way that is friendlier towards developing countries has been provided (in March 2005) by the FAO Committee of Fisheries adoption of voluntary guidelines for ecolabelling of fish products (FAO

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:52

The Marine Stewardship Council and Developing Countries

295

2005; see Chapter 3). These guidelines provide a framework of reference for governments and organisations that have (or intend to) establish ecolabels for marine capture fisheries. The FAO guidelines include the need for independent auditing, transparency of standard setting and accountability, and the need for standards to be based on ‘good science’. Unfortunately, transparency and inclusivity in standard setting do not work retroactively. The guidelines also lay down minimum requirements and criteria for assessing whether a fishery should be certified – drawing on FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. They allow for special consideration to be given to small-scale fisheries (paragraph 29) and for the use of less elaborate methods for stock assessment (paragraph 32). They also recognise that there are management measures in small-scale fisheries that can achieve adequate levels of protection even when there is uncertainty about the state of the resource (paragraph 32) (FAO 2005). The wording of the FAO guidelines suggests that special verification procedures can be applied to special situations, as opposed to suggesting the creation of a general verification system for developing countries (and/or to small-scale, data-poor fisheries). At the same time, parts of paragraph 32 of the guidelines could be interpreted as a justification for adopting special standards (not only special verification systems) in relation to specific cases. Yet, when the MSC declared that its system would be fully consistent with the FAO guidelines (see http://www.msc.org/html/ni 241.htm), only two organisational ‘refinements’ were deemed to be needed: (1) separating the accreditation of certification bodies from MSC’s standard-setting functions and (2) creating independence between the objections process (to be paid for by the objecting party) and the certification programme. So, despite the fact that FAO guidelines open the door for special treatment of developing country (and/or small-scale, data-poor) fisheries in ecolabelling, the MSC interprets its own compliance with the FAO guidelines to essentially require only organisational revision without the further need to specifically address developing country needs.

14.3 MSC and the South African hake industry The challenges highlighted above refer to the MSC initiative as a whole. The specific MSC certification of South African hake demonstrates how ecolabelling is far from being a non-political, neutral and scientific tool in the fight against overfishing and towards guaranteeing the sustainability of marine resources. In South Africa, MSC certification was sought in an environment of competition with other hake/hoki suppliers to Northern Hemisphere fish importers and processors (especially Unilever), of internal divisions within the hake industry (between the trawling and longlining sectors), and of fears of further quota losses due a postapartheid, government-engineered attempt to ‘transform’ industrial fisheries.

BLBK019-Ward

296

June 25, 2008

9:52

Seafood Ecolabelling

Table 14.1

Structure and characteristics of the South African hake industry (2006). Sectors Deep-sea trawl

In-shore trawl

Longlining

Handlining

Quota allocation (% of total hake quota)

83

6

10

Actual TAC volume (metric tons, 2006)

124 500

9 000

11 000

46

17

132

NA

8 938

1 480

1 495

NA

71

164

136

NA

Number of rights holders Jobs sustained Jobs per 1000 tonnes of TAC Main export forms

Frozen, fresh

Size of operations

Large

5 500 (max)

Frozen, fresh

Fresh

Little export

Medium

Medium-small

Small

Fleet (number of vessels)

79

31

64

1301

Proportion of TAC by HDI-controlled companies (%; 2006)

43

54

91

Low

Proportion of TAC by HDI-controlled companies (%; 2002)

25

50

90

NA

Source: www.feike.co.za. 1 Total allocated effort. HDI, historically disadvantaged individuals.

14.3.1 Main features of the South African hake industry Hake is the most important commercial fishery in South Africa, accounting for 40% of total value of fish and fishery product exports or US$143 million in 2003. The hake fishery of South Africa is currently organised into four sectors: deepsea trawl, in-shore trawl, longlining and handlining (see main characteristics in Table 14.1). Deep-sea trawl is by far the most important and is the focus of the analysis in this chapter (Plate 14.1). Following the establishment of an Exclusive Economic Zone in 1977, the hake industry has been regulated through the allocation of an annual TAC quota and of individual (non-tradable) quotas assigned to fishing companies. Foreign vessels have been excluded from the EEZ from 1983. The deep-sea trawl hake TAC has fluctuated between 105 000 tonnes (in 1983) and 140 000 tonnes (in 1997). Established rights holders are organised in the South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association (SADSTIA). Newer and smaller entrants in the industry have formed a separate organisation – the Association of Small Hake Quota Industries. The regulatory agency in charge of fisheries is Marine and Coastal Management (MCM), a branch of the South Africa Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. In order to understand what drove the deep-sea trawl hake industry to apply for MSC certification in the early 2000s, it is first necessary to provide a historical

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:52

The Marine Stewardship Council and Developing Countries

297

background of hake quota allocations in the context of apartheid and post-apartheid politics. The history of the hake trawl fishery under apartheid is one of systematic exclusion of ‘blacks’ from access to fishing quotas, licenses and harbours (in this chapter, the term ‘black’ is used as defined in South Africa’s ‘Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act’ – ‘a generic term that means Africans, Coloureds and Indians’). When individual quotas were introduced in 1979, three white-owned companies controlled over 90% of the TAC. Despite the entrance of other trawling companies in the following years, the TAC remained in the hands of the whiteowned companies. By 1991, there were less than 20 quota holders in the hake trawl sector, and 80% of the TAC was still in the hands of two groups of companies. The opening up of the industry to disadvantaged groups started only in the early 1990s. Following the first post-apartheid elections in 1994, there were high expectations among disadvantaged groups that the African National Congress-led government would radically alter the distribution of fishing rights even in industrial fisheries such as hake (Nielsen & Hara 2006). The period of 1995–2000 was marked by the entrance of new players despite the protestations of the established industry. It was also marked by the long and tortuous formulation of a new fisheries policy – the 1998 Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA). The MLRA required that the ownership and management of the fishing industry should reflect the demographics of contemporary South Africa. The proposed radical redistribution of quotas of 1998–1999, however, was successfully challenged by the established industry in the courts. Consequently, from the early 2000s, the government started to switch from an ‘external’ transformation approach focused on new entrants to an ‘internal’ transformation approach focused on what happens within established companies. The 2001 quota allocation, which for the first time covered a period of 4 years (2002–2005) instead of 1 year, provided the maintenance of status quo in the distribution of quotas. This meant that in 2002, only 25% of the total TAC was in the hands of majority black-owned companies (MCM 2004). It is in this context, and as government prepared for the allocation of long-term rights (15 years) in 2005/2006, that MSC assessment of the South African hake industry took place.

14.3.2 Motivations for the adoption of MSC certification Various motivations for seeking MSC certification were mentioned by South African hake industry actors in interviews. These are divided into two categories: ‘official’ motivations, which are those promoted by MCM and by major SADSTIA members and fall within mainstream understandings of what ecolabelling can achieve in competitive fish markets and ‘unofficial’ motivations, which are those stemming from domestic politics or are reflections on the established relations of power within the South African hake industry. Among the ‘official’ motivations, the following were found:

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

298

9:52

Seafood Ecolabelling

r To keep up with international competitors, such as New Zealand hoki (also MSC certified) and to remain ahead of Namibia, Chile and Argentina;

r To open up/increase South Africa’s share in new markets where there is ‘environmental demand’ (the UK, Germany, Switzerland) – mostly for frozen products and to keep ahead of possible developments in ‘traditional’ chilled fish markets, such as Spain, Italy and Portugal; r To match buyer demands (Unilever is the biggest buyer of fish for the two main South African fishing companies) and thus maintain preferred supplier status; and r To achieve a price premium for sustainable fish management (source: author’s personal interviews). While these ‘official’ motivations played a role in gathering momentum for the application of MSC certification, three other ‘unofficial’ motivations have provided a decisive stimulus:

r To entrench the then existing interests of major South African fishing companies, as MSC certification would have benefited the two large companies that dominate the industry. These companies have advanced processing lines, where they prepare processed products such as fish fingers, burgers, cutlets and marinated fillets. They dragged SADSTIA and the in-shore hake sector along with them, even though other companies have much less interest in MSC certification because their main markets (domestic, Spain, Italy) are not particularly interested in ecolabelling for fisheries products. By 2006, only three companies in South Africa held an MSC chain-of-custody certification for hake (I&J, Sea Harvest and Marpro; see www.msc.org/html/content 1100.htm). r To avoid ‘external’ transformation in South African fisheries. Through international endorsement of ‘conservative management’, the MSC certification was expected to provide a guarantee against the possibility of a further reallocation of quotas away from the main (white-owned) fishing companies. Very few players held hake rights up to the 1990s, but following the end of apartheid, the number of rights holders increased to 40–50. The overall argument constructed by large trawling companies is that it is easier to manage the resource and police catch levels when there are only a few players in the industry. This argument was developed and put forward at a key time when the regulatory agency in charge of managing quotas (MCM) was thoroughly revising its system of quota allocation. r To marginalise hake longliners. This motivation relates to an intra-industry battle between the trawling and longlining sectors after the establishment of the latter in hake fishery in the early 1990s. This conflict is couched in a natural resource management discourse – the longliners accuse trawlers of destroying the seabed and of catching small fish, and trawlers accuse longliners of targeting bigger females. There is no definitive evidence on which of the two techniques affect the hake stock more adversely, but there is a general scientific understanding that a badly managed combination of the two can be detrimental.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:52

The Marine Stewardship Council and Developing Countries

299

14.3.3 The certification process The MSC certification was the result of an evaluation process that lasted almost 2 years and that started with an application prepared by SADSTIA. The overall cost of fishery certification to the industry was US$100 000 in direct costs of certification plus US$100–200 000 to meet conditions in the midterm (author’s interviews). The direct cost of certification has been paid by SADSTIA members in proportion to the quota allocated to them. The assessment conducted by the certification body resulted in a relatively high score on stock management (88 points out of 100; the minimum pass is 80) – the first of the three principles of the MSC standard. According to industry sources, this was expected as there has been a relatively long history of proper monitoring of the resource in South Africa. Only one condition was appended by the assessment team – the development of a sampling programme to address deficiencies in understanding the variability of recruitment to the populations and the age structure of both hake species (Merluccius capensis and Merluccius paradoxus) (Powers et al. 2004). In relation to the second MSC principle (ecosystem impact), the South African hake industry barely made the grade (score of 80 points). Gaps were identified in four areas: bycatch management, ecosystem relations, impact of trawling on the benthic habitat and impact of trawling on seabird populations. The assessment team required specific corrective actions for each area. In relation to the third MSC principle (fishery management system), the industry’s score was relatively high (88 points). The only condition placed was a review of the compliance system. Despite the fact that the South African hake industry achieved certification, a number of problematic issues remain: (1) the trawling sector has been certified, but not the longlining sector, even though they exploit the same stock; (2) it is not clear if the hake stock is shared with Namibia, which is not certified; and (3) complaints have been raised about the relevance and rigidity of some indicators in the MSC standard and the lack of participation by some segments of the industry in the process.

14.3.4 Verification after certification In 2005, the South African hake industry was subjected to the first surveillance audit by the certifying team. This resulted in a report released in May 2005 (Tingley et al. 2005) that covers progress in all the conditions that were set at the time of certification. It is worth going into the details of some of these to understand what it means to maintain compliance with the MSC standard. Condition 1 refers to the claim that there are some bycatch species under pressure from hake trawling. The condition demanded a management plan to be in place within 12 months and its implementation soon thereafter. Disagreements within the industry on a bycatch policy meant that it was not prepared in time for the first surveillance visit by the certification team. Yet, the surveillance report noted that the industry had made moves in that direction, and that implementation was expected to

BLBK019-Ward

300

June 25, 2008

9:52

Seafood Ecolabelling

proceed quickly after the plan was in place. The message is that although the system is not in place, it would be soon. This should be read in connection with condition 6 on compliance monitoring. In this case, the team observed that measures have been implemented, and that partial fulfilment is due to ‘ongoing issues with staffing’. Problems with staffing (see also below) should raise alarm about the ability of the regulatory agency to carry on managing the resource effectively. Yet, here they are used as a mitigating factor. The report also noted that ‘no regulatory infringements occurred during the current reporting period’ (Tingley et al. 2005). However, shortly after the publication of the report, a hake trawler was arrested and fined by MCM for ‘illegally catching’ snoek (a low-value fish species consumed locally). The vessel was found in possession of 39 tonnes of hake (for which it has a quota allocation) and 300 tonnes of snoek, which is supposed to be ‘bycatch’ (Cape Times, 20 July 2005). But industry interviews suggest that trawlers have been using bycatch to make their operations financially viable for at least 15 years. Evaluated in terms of systemic performance, the arrest of the vessel is a positive outcome. However, the underlying causes of bycatch abuse are not addressed. Condition 3 related to gaps in understanding of ecosystems relationships. This is one aspect that even MSC recognises as difficult to achieve, even in the most advanced fisheries. In addition to a new research programme on the topic, the assessment team noted that the allocation policy of 2006 explicitly recognises the importance of an ecosystem approach, which will be entrenched in the future management of all fisheries (Tingley et al. 2005). A policy statement on this matter appeared to be sufficient to appease the certifiers on this condition. In its general comments, the surveillance team reflected upon the results of stock assessment in 2004, which indicated that stock levels had not changed. The team noted a series of weaknesses in data collection and in the understanding of longterm historical and ecological implications. Interestingly, the 2006 TAC in South Africa was reduced by 10 000 tonnes below the 2005 TAC. However, this figure was arrived at on the basis of the precautionary principle – for the first time since the 1970s, the hake survey did not take place in 2005 due to an unresolved dispute on overtime payment for the vessel crews that were supposed to operate the survey. This led to a TAC reduction that could in theory undermine MSC certification because it appeared to have no scientific basis. The overall assessment of the surveillance team was a positive one, and continuation of certification was recommended for the fishery. No MSC fishery has been de-certified so far (although the Western Australia Rock Lobster Fishery apparently lost its certification for a short period in 2006 over ongoing environmental issues). Is this an instance of ‘path dependency’ or a sign of improved management? South African observers of the fish industry made it clear that with the current rate of loss of scientists and managers at MCM, there will be no capacity to properly monitor the use and possible abuse of quotas. Thirtyfive scientists have left MCM between 1996 and 2005 (Fishing Industry News,

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:52

The Marine Stewardship Council and Developing Countries

301

December 2005, p. 12). After the 2006 allocation, for the first time assigned quotas for a period of 15 years, industry compliance to regulation is likely to decrease. A review of allocations should follow every 2–3 years to assess compliance with the allocation policy, but there is very limited capacity at MCM at present to undertake such reviews. A former MCM officer stated that: ‘many quota holders are privately admitting that there will be a free ride for the next 15 years’ (author’s interview, Cape Town, 22 November 2005). Yet, the MSC surveillance team’s report does not use the limited managerial capabilities at MCM to provide a case for de-certification. On the contrary, staffing problems are used as a justification for failure to comply with some conditions.

14.4 An evaluation of MSC certification in South Africa The commercial benefits that were expected to accrue to the South African hake industry from MSC certification have for the most part not materialised. According to one of the key beneficiaries of MSC certification in South Africa, suppliers of MSC certified hake have received the same price as for ‘regular’ fish from their buyers. It may be possible, though, that the MSC ecolabel has ensured that existing markets were maintained in the face of competition from other (and ecolabelled) products. In terms of actual impact on sustainability, recent media reports suggest that the hake stock is in danger and that catches are at historically low levels (Fishing Industry News, June 2006, pp. 10–11; Mail & Guardian, 30 June 2006). Yet, these outcomes may not be such a problem for the main drivers of MSC certification in South Africa, since they have achieved two other objectives. First, the proportion of TAC allocated to the hake longlining industry has not increased in the key allocation of long-term rights determined in 2006 (it is still 10% of the overall hake TAC). But even more importantly, MCM embedded in its own policy – the argument that fewer players are better for conservation than many players (MCM 2005). No new entrants were assigned quotas and some of the smaller existing quotas were not renewed (see Table 14.2). Although large companies lost a proportion of their quotas, the allocation of long-term rights is likely to create a secondary market for quotas. As a result, an even more concentrated industry (possibly in ‘white hands’) may emerge in the midterm to extract an increasingly scarce resource (Ponte & van Sittert 2007). This is no guarantee that ‘sustainability’ will be maintained.

14.5 Conclusions MSC certification, far from being simply a neutral and equal instrument yielding better conservation of fish stocks for humanity, is achieved in the context of global and local competition, special interest battles, and local politics. In South Africa,

Vuna Fishing Saco Viking Bato Star Eyethu/Pioneer Mayibuye Fernpar

Hangberg New South Africa Quayside Surmon BCP/Oceana Hoxies Azanian Sistro

Combined Fishing Ent. Calamari Ntshonalanga Community Workers Selecta Usuthu

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

Sea Harvest Atlantic Foodcorp (Marpro)

2 3 4

675 862 754 567 700 320

1.129 1.551 708 1.142 1.303 451 575 1.064

1.020 952 2.779 792 328 659 2.301

31.932 9.795 6.554

41.217

282 82 85 205 68 445

594 58 819 349 121 946 584 −74

957 944 838 771 768 765

1.723 1.609 1.527 1.491 1.424 1.397 1.159 990

2.962 2.878 2.800 2.573 2.328 2.092 1.774

27.339 8.158 8.102

−4.593 −1.637 1.547

1.941 1.926 21 1.781 2.000 1.433 −527

40.003

−1.213

13.983

12.103

23.735

75.501

Final 2006 LTR allocation (tonnes)

11

10

19

60

% of total allocation

Small 28 (up to 1 000 tonnes)

Medium-small 8 (100 2,000 tonnes)

Medium 7 (2 000–10 000 tonnes)

Big 2 (I&J, SH/Atlantic)

Classification

June 25, 2008

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

I&J

Final 2006 LTR allocation (tonnes)

Gain/loss (tonnes)

302

1

2006 before adjustment

Long-term hake deep-sea trawl (HDST) rights allocation in South Africa (2006–2020).

Name of company

Table 14.2

BLBK019-Ward 9:52

Seafood Ecolabelling

466 535 1.096 1.126 786 335 445 707 652 402 389 435 628 582 466 397 554 374 467 414 201 307 482 489 560 674 593 628 125.321

Bhana Coastal Impala Ziyabuya Siyaloba Premier Anglo Mar Algoa Bay Offshore Radaco Luzizi Visserye Dyer Eiland DMA Fishing Pellsrus Khoi Qwa Rainbow Nation Eigelaars Bote Engelbrecht Tradeforth Walters BP Marine Port Nolloth Zwm Visko Bayview Laingville Snoek Noordkaap

Total

282 212 −373 −420 −194 245 40 −358 −309 −60 −71 −148 −355 −323 −213 −180 −338 −207 −317 −295 −129 −307 −482 −489 −560 −674 −593 −628 125.321

748 747 723 706 592 579 485 350 343 342 319 287 273 259 254 217 216 167 150 118 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

Excluded 7

June 25, 2008

Source: Elaboration from MCM data. Note: Some of the excluded seven were able to get their quota back following an appeal process.

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

BLBK019-Ward 9:52

The Marine Stewardship Council and Developing Countries 303

BLBK019-Ward

304

June 25, 2008

9:52

Seafood Ecolabelling

although couched in a discourse of conservation, MSC was one of the instruments used to justify positions in debates that had race relations and possible redress of past wrongs under apartheid as the main issues at stake. It was played as a tool to prevent the redistribution of quotas away from main, white-owned, quota holders to the possible benefit of black-owned smaller quota holders and new entrants within the deep-sea hake sector. It was also used as a tool to avoid redistribution of quota away from the large, mainly white-owned, deep-sea trawling sector to the advantage of the mostly black-owned longlining sector, although these processes are not of MSC’s making. It is clear that the local politics and the political economy of conservation do matter for the process of ‘sustainability’ certifications. Developing countries fisheries and small-scale ones in particular, appear to have been marginalised in the MSC system. Only three fisheries in South Africa, Argentina and Mexico have been certified up to early 2007. Delivering ‘sustainability’ at no additional cost and in large volumes demands standards that are tough in terms of systems compliance, but actually quite approachable in terms of the thresholds of sustainability indicators. Entry barriers to ‘sustainability’ entail economies of scale and scope that require managerial resources and access to networks. Because managerial and systemic objectives are harder for developing country actors to match, this creates a hidden imbalance in favour of more endowed participants. Therefore, dedicated standard thresholds, compliance and verification systems for developing countries and small-scale producers are needed, not only special flexibilities. Until this happens and until premiums are paid at the producer level, MSC and similar initiatives will keep putting sustainability at the service of commercial interests.

References Agnew, D., Grieve, C., Orr, P., Parkes, G. & Barker, N. (2006) Environmental benefits resulting from certification against MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG) and MSC. Available at: http://www.msc.org/assets/docs/Resources/MSC Environmental Benefits Report Phase1 FINAL 4May2006.pdf [accessed on May 2007]. Allison, E.H. (2001) Big laws, small catches: global ocean governance and the fisheries crisis. Journal of International Development, 13, 933–950. Bonanno, A. & Constance, D. (1996) Caught in the Net: The Global Tuna Industry, Environmentalism, and the State. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, USA. Constance, D. & Bonanno, A. (2000) Regulating the global fisheries: the World Wildlife Fund, Unilever, and the Marine Stewardship Council. Agriculture and Human Values, 17, 125–139. Cummins, A. (2004) The Marine Stewardship Council: A multi-stakeholder approach to sustainable fishing. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11, 85–94.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:52

The Marine Stewardship Council and Developing Countries

305

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2005) Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries. FAO, Rome, Italy. Gale, F. & Haward, M. (2004) Public accountability in private regulation: Contrasting models of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Paper presented at the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, University of Adelaide, 29 September–1 October 2004. Gardiner, P.R. & Viswanathan, K.K. (2004) Ecolabelling and fisheries management. WorldFish Center Studies and Reviews, 27. WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. Jaffry, S., Pickering, H., Ghulam, Y., Whitmarsh, D. & Wattage, P. (2004) Consumer choices for quality and sustainability labelled seafood products in the UK. Food Policy, 29(3), 215–228. Johnston, R.J., Wessells, C.R., Donath, H. & Asche, F. (2001) A contingent choice analysis of ecolabelled seafoods: comparing consumer preferences in the United States and Norway. Journal of Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics 26(1), 20–39. Marine and Coastal Management (MCM) (2004) Transformation and the South African fishing industry. MCM, Cape Town, South Africa. Marine and Coastal Management (MCM) (2005) Policy for the allocation and management of commercial fishing rights in the hake deep-sea trawl fishery. MCM, Cape Town, South Africa. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) (2004a) Marine Stewardship Council fisheries certification methodology. MSC, London, UK. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) (2004b) Marine Stewardship Council international eco-labelling of fisheries. MSC, London, UK. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) (2004c) MSC minutes of the ‘special joint session of the Stakeholder Council and the Technical Advisory Board – the MSC claim of sustainability’. Rome, 27 May 2004. MSC, London, UK. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) (2006) MSC fisheries certification: final report (New Zealand Commercial Hoki Fishery), April 2006. MSC, London. Available at: http://www.msc.org/assets/docs/New Zealand Hoki/Final RepApri2006.pdf [accessed on June 2007]. May, B., Leadbitter, D., Sutton, M. & Weber, M. (2003) The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Eco-labelling in Fisheries What Is It All about?. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Nielsen, J.R. & Hara, M. (2006) Transformation of South African industrial fisheries. Marine Policy, 30, 43–50. Ponte, S. (2006) Ecolabels and fish trade: Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification and the South African hake industry. TRALAC Working Paper 9/2006. Trade Law Centre for Southern Africa, Stellenbosch, South Africa. Ponte, S. & van Sittert, L. (2007) The Chimera of redistribution: Black economic empowerment in the South African fish industry. Development and change, 38(5), 933–955. Powers, J., Japp, D., Tingley, G. & Hough, A. (2004) Final certification report for South African hake trawl fishery. Moody Marine, Derby, UK. Roheim, C.A. (2003) Early indications of market impacts from the Marine Stewardship Council’s ecolabeling of seafood. Marine Resource Economics, 18, 95–104.

BLBK019-Ward

306

June 25, 2008

9:52

Seafood Ecolabelling

Tingley, G., Powers, J., Japp, D. & Hough, A. (2005) Surveillance report South African hake trawl industry. Moody Marine, Derby, UK. Wessells, C.R., Cochrane, K., Deere, C., Wallis, P. & Willmann, R. (2001) Product certification and ecolabelling for fisheries sustainability. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 422. FAO, Rome, Italy.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:15

Chapter 15

Benefits of Certification for Small-scale Fisheries Meredith Lopuch

15.1 Introduction This chapter considers the role that the process of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment and certification may play in assisting small-scale fisheries to achieve high standards of sustainability, and to enable them to demonstrate this. Such fisheries may not always use the ecolabel secured from a successful certification assessment to label their products, but they may nevertheless be able to secure a number of benefits from both the process of MSC assessment, and from securing MSC certification. These benefits may include access to markets otherwise unavailable, they may receive preferential local funding and increased standing in their local and national contexts, and they may benefit from improved organisation of the fishery management system. This chapter considers these issues, and looks at some of the experience and evidence. Ever since the MSC was first conceived, critics have contended that the programme might not be accessible or applicable to small-scale fisheries (see Chapters 4 and 14). It has been suggested that the costs associated with certification would be beyond the means of many small-scale fisheries, and also that certification could be problematic for ‘data-poor’ fisheries in either developing or developed countries (Langstaff 1997). Small-scale fishers comprise approximately 94% of the world’s fishers and produce nearly half of the global fish supply for human consumption (McGoodwin 1994). Along the world’s coastlines, these small-scale fisheries provide most of the protein and jobs for neighbouring communities, yet are heavily threatened by coastal habitat destruction and pollution due to human activities on land. In addition, these fisheries often operate in some of the most biologically diverse and rich marine eco-regions on Earth. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), along with leading scientists from around the world, developed the Global 200 – the eco-regions most important to global biodiversity – and the WWF global network has an institutional commitment to protecting these eco-regions. The MSC is an important tool to help address global overfishing and thus help protect eco-regions. For the MSC to accomplish its goal SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

307

BLBK019-Ward

308

May 27, 2008

1:15

Seafood Ecolabelling

of addressing overfishing globally and for WWF to significantly protect marine eco-regions, small-scale fisheries need to have access to MSC certification and be successful in the certification process. Since the creation of the MSC, WWF has taken a special interest in advancing certification as a conservation tool to benefit small-scale fisheries and coastal communities. In 1999, WWF started the Community Fisheries Program (CFP), which was tasked with helping small-scale fisheries in both developing and developed countries through the MSC certification process. Through the work of this programme WWF has played a variety of roles including conducting outreach, fundraising, networking, providing advice and strategic direction, and providing transitional help to fisheries interested in moving from pre-assessment to full assessment. Since beginning this work the programme has grown to 15 projects worldwide. The fisheries involved with these projects range from artisanal community fisheries in developing countries to larger volume fisheries in developed countries where fishing is conducted from small boats with only a few crew members. In all these projects the CFP works with the MSC staff responsible for the region and local partners on the ground, either the local WWF office or another non-governmental organisation (NGO) partner. In these partnerships WWF presents our goals and our perceptions of the benefits of entering the MSC programme, and the MSC represents their programme and the technical aspects of the certification process. Outreach is conducted in this way to ensure that each organisation is speaking for itself and thus miscommunications are minimised and autonomy is maintained. This joint approach has turned out to be essential to the success of the CFP projects. The projects of the CFP tend to fall into three categories: (i) fisheries that WWF has approached; (ii) fisheries that have approached WWF and (iii) scoping projects to identify possible candidates for certification in WWF priority eco-regions. With our global network of organisations and its partnerships with local NGOs, the CFP is well equipped and has been successful in promoting and facilitating certification of small-scale fisheries in both developing and developed countries. Along the way, we have learned a number of important lessons that led to changes in how we approach new projects. We now have a better understanding of how small-scale fisheries can benefit from MSC certification.

15.2 The certification dilemmas Early projects of the CFP tended to be fisheries that were identified as having potential by other WWF offices or by partner NGOs. In many cases these fisheries or communities were already working with WWF or our partners on other conservation projects. Through this connection, outreach about MSC certification was conducted and interest from the fishery determined. The problem with this approach was that often these fisheries were not ideal candidates for certification, but this was only

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:15

Benefits of Certification for Small-scale Fisheries

309

determined once an investment in the pre-assessment was made and expectations of achieving a successful MSC certification were raised. There were two main types of pitfalls that the early projects encountered. The first we term the ‘data dilemma’ – either many small-scale fisheries do not use western concepts of science to manage their resources or the management system does not invest in science as heavily as do the larger industrial fisheries where the potential environmental/resource impact is the greatest. The data dilemma creates the situation where communities utilising traditional fishing methods, possibly used for decades or hundreds of years, find it difficult to demonstrate basic catch trends over time or provide stock status information. The second pitfall is termed the ‘management dilemma’ – many small-scale fisheries use traditional management methods which might include taboos, religious beliefs, or other social or cultural measures to control fishing effort resulting in what western science would term ‘precautionary approaches’. In many cases these traditional systems are not formal and perhaps not even written, transmitted by customary oral practices. Therefore, making a case to prove sustainability using a western science approach could be difficult for these fisheries. The CFP also recognised that it was possible that neighbouring communities or fisheries outside of our existing contacts could provide better candidates for certification. As we continued to gain experience through working with communities with fishing issues, we began to form a picture of what small-scale fishery characteristics were essential for success in the certification process. This, combined with limited investment of financial resources, led the CFP to work with our partners to develop a scoping methodology termed the ‘pre-analysis model’. This model can be used to provide guidance about which fisheries might be good candidates for certification in regions where there is limited knowledge of the fishery resources. The two-phase methodology was designed to be flexible enough to be used in any size region anywhere in the world (Lopuch et al. 2005) (Figure 15.1). The first phase is a step-by-step planning process for the project and for stakeholder involvement. This phase is essential to the ultimate success because it helps the user realistically select a scope for the project that fits their resources, and helps to ensure that the project will be robust and the result useful. Stakeholder involvement is one of the main ways to gather information in this methodology. Without thorough and diverse stakeholder involvement the user runs the risk of incomplete or biased information, which will taint the outcome of the project. The second phase uses multi-criterion analysis, an analysis that utilises both quantitative and qualitative information to provide a picture of which fisheries might be good candidates for MSC certification. This picture forms the basis for discussion on how limited resources could then be invested. In addition to using the model to identify potential candidates for certification, the methodology also provides a database of information to address related conservation issues and/or inform strategic planning.

BLBK019-Ward

310

May 27, 2008

1:15

Seafood Ecolabelling

1. Define Your Goals

2. Define Your Time line

3. Define the Region Phase 1 4. Identify Experts ‘Data-Driven’ Questionnaire

Letter to the Experts 5. Consult the Experts

‘Data-Limited’ Questionnaire 6. Review Recommendations Fishery Profile 7. Design Your Database

8. Define Criteria Criteria Guidance 9. Input Data

10. Select Fisheries and Criteria

Phase 2

11. Weight Criteria

12. Run the Analysis

Evaluating Your Results

Figure 15.1

Flowchart of the pre-analysis methodology. (From Lopuch et al. 2005.)

In practice, the pre-analysis model can be either formally applied in a regional process as laid out in the step-by-step project planning phase or the model can be tailored and used informally in areas with good fisheries information to evaluate options for investing in potential projects. An early version of the pre-analysis model led to the identification of the Baja California spiny lobster fishery, and subsequently

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:15

Benefits of Certification for Small-scale Fisheries

311

to certification in April 2004, the first developing country fishery to become MSC certified (www.msc.org). A more sophisticated version of the model is currently being used by the CFP for fisheries in Japan, Africa, Vietnam, Russia and India. We are hopeful that over the next few years at least a few fisheries identified through these projects will be successful in the MSC certification process. However, even if the scoping work does not lead to successful MSC certifications, the scoping, awareness raising and the involvement in the MSC certification process may result in significant improvements and/or benefits within individual fisheries.

15.3 Benefits of the certification process The most important lesson learned through the years of CFP field experience is that small-scale fisheries use the process and deliverables – the pre-assessment and full assessment reports – of MSC certification to address significant issues within their fishery such as sustainability and political challenges. The resulting environmental, social and political benefits are equally important to, and in many cases more important than, the potential market benefits of certification in smallscale fisheries. We term these benefits as the ‘hidden benefits of certification’. The process of MSC certification can be classified into a number of formal and informal steps. The formal steps of the MSC certification process include the pre-assessment and the full assessment. These steps are conducted by an MSCaccredited certifier and the methodology is governed by the MSC (May et al. 2003, www.msc.org, see Chapter 4). However, many fisheries work to prepare themselves for the pre-assessment and the full assessment (Chaffee et al. 2003), and this work constitutes the informal steps of certification. The CFP engages with two of these informal steps – scoping and transitional work. Scoping is the process of selecting candidate fisheries, and during this step preliminary outreach to the fishery community is conducted and data on the fishery are gathered. Transitional work refers to the step between pre-assessment and full assessment where the fishery works on the changes recommended in the MSC pre-assessment. The hidden benefits of the MSC certification process can be demonstrated throughout the process of certification, but are concentrated during the scoping, pre-assessment and transitional work steps. It is important to note the MSC pre-assessment may be kept confidential between the client fishery and the MSC-accredited certifier. This allows a fishery to understand how well they would do in the certification process, and to proceed with improvements without having to publicly expose their issues and potentially lose market opportunities or suffer bad publicity as a result. In order for small-scale fisheries to benefit from the process of certification they often need to be willing to waive this confidentiality, and in the experience of the CFP this is rarely an issue. Many small-scale fisheries undergoing pre-assessment choose to make the pre-assessment a public process. This may be because the certifier cannot get a

BLBK019-Ward

312

May 27, 2008

1:15

Seafood Ecolabelling

clear understanding about the complexity of the issues without consulting at least some of the key stakeholders, thus exposing the existence of the pre-assessment process. In any case, if the fishery intends to use the pre-assessment as the basis for identifying specific issues to be addressed within the transition period, it is difficult to maintain strict confidentiality. The following sections describe the five categories of hidden benefits that the CFP has identified through its experience with small-scale fisheries in developing and developed countries.

15.3.1 Filling knowledge gaps As the early lessons of MSC certification demonstrated, many small-scale fisheries struggle with gaps in knowledge about their resource – the data dilemma. Data limitations about the fished resource plague both developing and developed countries, and are not unique to small-scale fisheries. However, a lack of precaution in the management system in the face of such data uncertainty may result in poor outcomes (or unsuccessful management) (Gerrodette et al. 2002, Holt & Talbot 1978). The CFP has worked with a number of indigenous community fisheries that have successfully conducted their way of life, including utilisation of ocean resources, for many generations using traditional methods, despite what appear to be substantial gaps in knowledge. The knowledge gaps range from not understanding basic life-history information to a lack of knowledge about stock status, range and dynamics. Typically, small-scale fisheries will have a general sense of the basic life-history characteristics and ecosystem context of the resource species, but will lack knowledge that is specific enough to address issues of stock status, range and dynamics. The MSC certification process has proved to be a good tool for helping identify the gaps in knowledge and provide the impetus for these to be filled. In the certification process, gaps in knowledge are most commonly identified as a result of the pre-assessment (although many also surface as the main assessment unfolds). The MSC certification process relies on both the expert judgement of the certification assessors and on stakeholder involvement to ensure credibility in the process. Stakeholder involvement is encouraged early in the pre-assessment process and creates the opportunity for knowledge sharing between stakeholders in ways that may not be possible or common in the candidate fishery, the management system or even the cultural context of the country. As a result, questions about the fished resource can sometimes be answered from the combined knowledge of the stakeholders at the table. Alternatively, plans can be developed to engage the talents of the various stakeholders to fill knowledge gaps during a transitional period, hopefully leading to the commencement of a full assessment of the fishery. However, this non-traditional questioning and challenging of the fishery can also create difficulties within the existing management system, as traditionally entrenched powers may become questioned, and as information accepted previously as dogma comes under scrutiny.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:15

Benefits of Certification for Small-scale Fisheries

313

The MSC is the keeper of the standard, but an accredited certifier retained by the client does the actual assessment of the fishery to determine if the fishery is in compliance with the MSC standard. This third-party process exposes the fishery and the management system to external and independent analysis and review. The result is that the local community, fishers, scientists and managers are able to potentially gain direct exposure to leading science expertise, and may even become involved with the international science community during the process of assessment and filling of knowledge gaps.

15.3.2 Filling knowledge gaps in practice While knowledge gaps are most commonly identified during the pre-assessment, they can also be identified during the earlier scoping work. The following examples highlight how fisheries are filling gaps in knowledge at various steps in the MSC assessment process. The CFP is working with WWF Vietnam to identify potential candidates for MSC certification along the Vietnamese coast (Plate 15.1). Over the last few years there have been a few government and funder-driven initiatives to catalogue information about these small-scale fisheries (Nguyen Thi DieuThuy, WWF-Vietnam Marine Officer, personal communication, March, 2007). WWF is using the information from these initiatives and the pre-analysis model (Figure 15.1) to provide guidance and insight to our marine programme and those of other NGOs. Using the resulting database, NGOs will be able to apply a number of conservation tools to deal with complicated issues facing the coasts of Vietnam. In addition, this catalogue will also provide guidance to WWF Vietnam, the CFP and the MSC about where to best apply limited resources. The CFP is also working with the Seri Indians along the central-eastern desert coast of the Gulf of California. They are one of the last remaining indigenous communities in Mexico, and they depend on the Gulf’s marine resources for survival. The Seris’ most important resource is jaiba (Callinectes bellicosus), a local variety of blue crab, which they fish in the Infiernillo Channel. This project is a partnership between WWF and Comunidad y Biodiversidad (COBI) in coordination with the National Fisheries Institute (INP) through their Centro Regional de Investigacion Pesquera (CRIP) in Guaymas, Mexico. An MSC pre-assessment of this fishery showed that there were some unanswered questions and lack of data on the range and health of the stock (SCS 2005). To address this gap in knowledge, a fishery biologist was hired to analyse all the existing information from Sonora and Sinaloa, two neighbouring states in the Gulf of California. This work resulted in the first stock assessment for this fishery in 2000 (Marquez-Farias 2001), and the first specific management tool for this fishery, the Jaiba Mexican Official Norm. The hope is that this work will lead to a better understanding of the jaiba population, its range and dynamics, and that one day this work might lead the fishery to proceed with full assessment.

BLBK019-Ward

314

May 27, 2008

1:15

Seafood Ecolabelling

The Baja California spiny lobster fishery (Plate 15.2, and see Chapter 12) was the first small-scale fishery from a developing country to achieve MSC certification (Plate 15.3). This achievement resulted in positive attention from a variety of sources, including the offer to become the test case fishery for a bio-complexity study (http://micheli.stanford.edu/projects/baja.php) that hopes to more completely understand what makes this fishery and the associated human communities sustainable. When the Baja California spiny lobster fishery was awarded certification, the certifier required some of the assumptions being used in the management system to be tested, and these were established as conditions of certification. Before the fishery was awarded the MSC certificate it was required to agree to a timeline to meet the conditions. The CFP contacted the principle investigators of the bio-complexity study and discussed the possibility of their study helping the fishery meet the MSC conditions in the process of data collection for the study. It was agreed that there was enough common interest between the scientists’ interests in the study and what the fishery was required to demonstrate. Consequently, the fishers are directly involved in data collection in the study, and this will help to ensure an ongoing data collection process can continue after the bio-complexity study is completed. The fishery has completed two MSC annual audits and is on target to meet the conditions of certification. Thus the combination of the MSC certification as a vehicle for requiring increased data and information combined with the bio-complexity study as a mechanism to gather the data will result in a better understanding of the lobster fishery, and will hopefully result in even better management of the resource and ecosystem.

15.3.3 Lobbying power Around the world in both developing and developed countries small-scale fisheries struggle to be heard. Small-scale actors are commonly under-represented or simply not listened to because the larger players in the fishery sector have more of the market share, more of the profits, directly control more employment and this translates to more of the lobbying power. In many developing countries wealthier middlemen will provide capital to community fishers, and in return the fishers are required to sell to the middlemen exclusively, and at a set price (WWF-Eastern African Marine Ecoregion Programme, personal communication, August 2006). Such systems ensure that the community fishers have little, if any, voice. In other cases, governments with limited financial resources might sell the fishing rights of their countries to the highest bidder without much consideration of the impact on small-scale fisheries and the communities that rely on ocean resources for their survival (Copes 1999). The MSC certification process is a tool that can be used by small-scale fishers to make themselves heard. Although there are difficulties to be overcome (see Chapter 14), the process and the deliverables can be used by small-scale fishers as a way to lobby for change. The power of the MSC process is two-fold. First, the third-party certification system provides objectivity and independence that first-party or second-party

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:15

Benefits of Certification for Small-scale Fisheries

315

certification programmes cannot provide. Since the keeper of the standard and the certifier are separate entities, the potential for degradation of the standard and/or foul play in the process is minimised. Second, the MSC certification process is international in scope as opposed to local or regional. By having one certification process that can be applied to any wild fishery on the planet, there is the potential to compare between certifications of fisheries for the same or similar species to ensure consistency. In addition, the international nature of the MSC programme means that fisheries from around the globe and earlier MSC certifications are used as the benchmark for sustainability. This cross-pollination of information and expertise can lead to increases in resource understanding at the local level, and the same mechanism also provides for a degree of credibility in the deliverables of the certification process. In practice a small-scale fishery might have observed a particular environmental or sustainability issue, but they may not be able to attract the attention of their management or governmental systems. By soliciting and completing an MSC preassessment, and being willing to share the results publicly, the fishery might be able to gain credibility and have the issue listened to by those with the power to make change. In this way the first deliverable of the MSC certification process, the pre-assessment, can provide a third-party verification of the small-scale fishery’s concerns and this can then be used as leverage or as a bargaining tool to improve their position.

15.3.4 Creating lobbying power A good example of a small-scale fishery using the MSC process as a means of creating lobbying power within a management framework is provided by a lobster fishery in north-eastern Brazil. Early in the MSC programme, this fishery conducted a pre-assessment with the express purpose of using it to lobby the Brazilian government for the implementation of a national lobster management plan. One of the fishery’s major concerns was increased industrial fishing of lobsters by foreign vessels in the offshore waters. The communities that make up this fishery had been observing this behaviour and reporting it to the authorities for a time to no avail (Chaffee 2001, Scharer 2001). The pre-assessment was an opportunity for the community to receive a third-party verification of their concerns. At the same time the communities encouraged others along the coast to join the MSC programme by promoting certification at an annual sailing race. This approach has produced some positive results. Most importantly, the government and the fishery have now developed a local working group which is working together to address the problem of foreign fleets in their local waters. There are also many small-scale fisheries in developed countries that are underrepresented either due to management system resource allocations and/or because of the powerful voice of the few large actors in their regional or national fishery sector. In these fisheries the MSC certification process could also provide the vehicle

BLBK019-Ward

316

May 27, 2008

1:15

Seafood Ecolabelling

to help pass new legislation for gear restrictions, fishery-wide modifications or implementation of research programmes (Zeke Grader, Executive Director, US Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, personal communication, December 2006).

15.3.5 Creating insurance In addition to using the process of certification to create lobbying power for change, small-scale fisheries that are under-represented or overlooked can use the MSC assessment process as a way to create a justification of their operations – an insurance policy of sorts for securing their rights to harvest the resources. Again, the thirdparty international nature of the MSC programme creates a degree of recognised credibility. This same credence can be used by a fishery that may be under threat from, say other fishers competing for the same resource, to protect its rights. While this benefit might be realised by completing a pre-assessment and sharing the results, it is most effective if the fishery is able to succeed in the full assessment process. The pre-assessment allows the fishery to demonstrate what it is doing well and how it could improve. The fishery, through negotiation with the management authority, could then agree to terms that would allow the fishery to continue operations while making changes or re-engage in operations once changes are made. By contrast, if a fishery is able to complete the MSC full assessment and become certified it could argue that it is acting sustainably and that the authority should have little concern about its continued operation on ecological sustainability grounds. There are some obvious assumptions being made in this argument. First, it is assumed that the MSC standard is more robust than the requirements of the management authority in question. Second, in the case where the standard and the authority requirements are similar, it is assumed that the fishery is at least meeting the authority requirements and that the MSC assessment process can document these achievements.

15.3.6 Using the process as insurance In South Australia, the Lakes and Coorong Fishery is a small-scale mixed estuarine fishery operating in a RAMSAR site (an estuarine site of high international importance for migratory wading birds) (www.ramsar.org). One of the reasons that this fishery initially entered the MSC assessment process was because they wanted international third-party verification that their operation was compatible with the RAMSAR designation of the site, and to be able to secure their resource allocation against the pressures of a highly competitive recreational fishery targeting some of the same species of fish (WWF-Australia staff, personal communication, 2003). At the time that the fishery entered MSC assessment, the government of Australia was reviewing its management of ocean resources and discussing what activities should or should not be allowed in areas of high environmental importance. Prior to

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:15

Benefits of Certification for Small-scale Fisheries

317

pre-assessment the fishery was concerned about the incidental capture of migratory birds and the potential impact of this bycatch on certification. The pre-assessment found that there was little risk of negative interactions with the RAMSAR-listed birds and that the very limited interactions or bycatch was not of concern for the consulted stakeholders. With data in hand the fishery entered full assessment and is now nearing the end of the full assessment process and we are hopeful for a positive outcome. The MSC-certified Baja California spiny lobster fishery is made up of nine cooperatives in the central Baja California peninsula of Mexico. These cooperatives are federated together and through this mechanism make group marketing and management decisions. Each of the cooperatives has concessions, or exclusive rights to the area that they fish, that were first granted in 1936/1938. These concessions are reviewed and re-granted as deemed appropriate by the Mexican government every 20 years. When MSC certification was first introduced to the fishing federation, one of the main reasons that the fishery was interested in certification was that they saw it as a means to ensure that when their concessions were up for review that they would be able to demonstrate that they were fishing sustainably and should be re-granted the concessions (see Chapter 12). There are a number of small-scale fisheries in Mexico that operate under this concession arrangement, and there is now interest in MSC certification from some of the other Mexican fisheries, perhaps for the same reason.

15.3.7 Community organisation and empowerment One of the greatest challenges in working with small-scale fisheries is the lack of any obvious form of organisational structure. This is sometimes the result of geographic distance between communities, but can sometimes also be attributed to a lack of leadership or the lack of any perceived need for organisation. And sometimes the lack of formal or informal organisation is simple a reality of the strain of daily life for people in these communities, who are more concerned about putting food on the table each evening than ensuring community organisation. The CFP has found, as have many NGOs working in developing countries, that providing the mechanism and forum for community organisation leads to empowerment and a sense of ownership. Through organisation, communities can find their voice, they can become entrepreneurial, and they may take ownership of their resource, tackle challenges and find solutions to problems that have previously prevented a cohesive response to resource management issues. Such empowerment can result in more sustainable communities and more sustainable resource use (Jayme et al. 2001). The CFP has found that introducing the concept of MSC certification is a means for developing community organisation and empowerment. Initially, this was done informally with individual fisheries that we thought might be good candidates for certification. With the development of the scoping methodology we now have a more sophisticated way of seeking and engaging local ‘experts’ in the process

BLBK019-Ward

318

May 27, 2008

1:15

Seafood Ecolabelling

and, through this stakeholder group, connections are made and organisation can be created. In some cases the prospect of MSC certification provided enough incentive to motivate communities and stakeholders to work together to make changes to their fishery management organisation, but in other cases more direct support was necessary to focus on issues. But what is common in the experience of the CFP is that with small-scale fisheries, the MSC certification concept is an incentive, is non-threatening and allows for the creation of a safe place to discuss all sorts of challenges and issues.

15.3.8 Creating community organisation and empowerment Early in the MSC programme the concept of MSC certification was introduced to a few fishing communities in the Philippines that target blue crab (Portunus pelagicus) in the western Visaya Sea. Prior to our work with these communities there was very little organisation or even communication between them. Since the initial meetings these fishing communities and others have come together with local governments to develop management and enforcement plans to safeguard their crab with the long-term hope of formally pursuing MSC certification (Box 15.1, Jayme et al. 2001). Box 15.1

Community Commitments to Certification in the Philippines

Certification will assure a continuous market for our products, blue swimming crab, internationally thereby providing a continued source of income for us and in return we will exert all efforts necessary to help sustain the resource. From Teodoro ‘Teddy’ Casibo, crab fisherman, Barangay, Bubog, Talisay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines.

In eastern Africa, WWF is conducting a scoping project in Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique to identify fisheries that could be good candidates for MSC certification. The scoping methodology calls for significant stakeholder outreach and involvement. Although it is only early days, work in Tanzania resulted in the involvement of the government and numerous communities in a number of forums and discussion groups about the MSC and there is now formal interest to pursue certification for some of their fisheries (EAME project update, January 2007).

15.3.9 Social and political benefits Market benefits may not be easily recognised for small-scale fisheries that are able to achieve MSC certification. While some of the small-scale fisheries do have export markets, this is not common, and most small-scale fisheries distribute the majority of

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:15

Benefits of Certification for Small-scale Fisheries

319

their product either locally or nationally. In addition, the capital, infrastructure and skills that would need to be invested to create international markets may not be worth the returns, given that many small-scale fisheries are also low-volume fisheries compared to the major players in the global marketplace. The greatest market potential for many of these fisheries will be local ‘international’ markets formed through eco-tourism in high-end market niches like ‘white-tablecloth restaurants’ and specialty grocery stores, or by identifying and working with local and national resellers interested in sourcing small volumes of sustainable products. Most small-scale fisheries that enter the MSC certification process recognise the challenges of competing in the global marketplace where the demand and rewards may be greater for MSC certified products. Thus, instead of focusing on potential international market benefits, small-scale fisheries are attracted to the potential environmental, social and political benefits. While some social and political benefits can be realised during the process of assessment, there are additional potential benefits once the fishery has successful completed MSC certification and has been awarded the certificate. Becoming MSC certified means that the fishery can develop new marketing methods. In doing so, the fishery will heighten its local and national visibility and, depending on the resources of the fishery and/or its partners, they can even gain visibility in the international realm.

15.3.10 Creating social and political benefits The Baja California spiny lobster fishery had to address both knowledge gaps and political obstacles on their path towards MSC certification, and was eventually successful largely because of the will and determination of the nine cooperatives that make up this fishery. In order to determine the fishery’s perception of the benefits of MSC certification, WWF and our local partner Comunidad y Biodiversidad (COBI) worked with the fishery to develop a baseline assessment. This was written by two of the fishery leaders and in their own words they describe the benefits they have seen as a result of the MSC certification (Ramade & Garcia 2005). One of the major benefits they describe is the recognition they have received from the Mexican government and the resulting benefits of this raised visibility. Prior to MSC certification the cooperatives paid for basic community services, including electricity for more than 30 years, from their own pockets. Within a year of the fishery achieving MSC certification, the fishery has been granted over US$20 million in government and grant funds to create the infrastructure to bring electricity to these communities. In addition, five of the cooperatives now also have drinkable water provided by desalination, which was made possible by the supply of electricity. This is resulting is healthier communities and money back in the fisher’s pockets (Ramade & Garcia 2005). The fishery has also been asked to participate in a number of fisher exchanges. Representatives from the fishery have travelled to Panama, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Brazil, the US and within Mexico to share their story. These exchanges allow the

BLBK019-Ward

320

May 27, 2008

1:15

Seafood Ecolabelling

Baja fishery to gain new information that they can apply at home and to discuss the issues of certification. The exchanges also have made this fishery a regional hub for additional successes with fisheries throughout Central and South America. The CFP is in the process of beginning a new project with another Mexican lobster fishery that participated in one of the fisher exchanges. The Baja fishery provides a global role model for how MSC certification can be successful in a community fishery, given the right set of tools and their sensitive application within the small-scale fishery context.

15.4 Conclusions While it is clear that a lot of progress has been made with MSC certification in small-scale fisheries there is still a lot to do. The data and management dilemmas remain major impediments for small-scale fisheries entering MSC certification. In addition, the cost of certification and the length of time it takes to become certified are major disincentives. The MSC is considering ways to address the data and management dilemmas of small-scale fisheries and are trying to see if the process of full assessment could be completed in no more than a year, but the cost of certification remains a major concern for those of us working with smallscale fisheries and developing nations. There are a few foundations interested in funding this type of work but relying on foundation funds is not a mechanism for underpinning fishery sustainability because it tends to create a further dependence on external support and interventions. For the MSC to be ultimately successful and for small-scale fisheries to truly have equal access to the MSC programme, long-term funding mechanisms that small-scale fisheries can access are needed. In addition, significant emphasis needs to be placed on the development of structural organisation in small-scale fishery communities, so that they will have the means to deal with the ongoing requirements of the MSC programme without the constant help of NGOs or other partners. Despite these challenges, the benefits of the MSC certification process are clear. By comparing the MSC expectations and standard to the current state of their fishery the communities can develop a road map for the future. They can use this as a driver to gain a better understanding of their fished resource, and ultimately improve the environmental sustainability. They can use the MSC assessment process and certification to lobby for change or to create insurance for the future. The process can help organise and empower communities in a positive manner and give them hope that challenges and obstacles can be overcome. And finally, for those fisheries that can secure certification, there is the potential for niche marketing and the associated social and political benefits that can contribute to the well-being of their communities and the generations to come. In small-scale fisheries, the MSC programme is as much about socio-economic outcomes for communities as it is about fisheries sustainability, and this is a key path for the MSC programme in

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:15

Benefits of Certification for Small-scale Fisheries

321

the future. It remains to be seen if small-scale fisheries can overcome the data and management dilemmas in a systematic way, and whether or not the MSC certification can actually deliver positive and sustained outcomes for them beyond the initial start-up phase of the MSC programme.

References Chaffee, C. (2001) Lobbying for lobsters. Samudra, 29, 30–36. Chaffee, C., Phillips, B. & Ward, T. (2003) Implementing the MSC programme process. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Eco-Labelling in Fisheries: What Is It All About? pp. 61–79. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. Copes, P. (1999) Common-property fishing rights: coastal resources for whom? Samudra, 23, 14–19. Gerrodette, T., Dayton, P.K., Mackinnon, S. & Fogarty, M.J. (2002) Precautionary management of marine fisheries: moving beyond burden of proof. Bulletin of Marine Science, 70, 657–668. Holt, S.J. & Talbot, L.M. (1978) New principles for the conservation of wild living resources. Wildlife Monographs, 59, 1–33 Jayme, K., Apostol, R., Sariego, I. & Mider, J. (2001) Lessons from the field: promoting community-based certification of the blue crab fishery of the Northeastern Guimaras Strait, Negors, Philippines. WWF Philippines, Quezon City, Manila, Philippines. Langstaff, L. (1997) Marine Stewardship Council Initiative Regional Workshop, Aberdeen, Scotland 9–10 April 1997: Workshop Summary. RESOLVE, Inc. Washington, DC. Lopuch, M., Sa´enz A. & Bourill´on L. (2005) Pre-analysis model. Unpublished Report. WWF-US and COBI. Marquez-Farias, F. (2001) Estado de la porblacion de jaiba verde Callinectes bellicosus de Bahia de Kino y Canal de Infiernillo. In: G. Montemayor & J. Torre (Eds) Unidad funcinal de manejo de jaiba verde: Descripcion de aspectos biologicos, economicos, sociales y de manejo pesquero de jaiba verde (Callinectes bellicosus) en Bahia Kino y Canal de Infiernillo, Sonora. Capitulo 6. Conservation International, Mexico, AC. May, B., Leadbitter, D., Sutton, M. & Weber, M. (2003) The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) background, rationale and challenges. In: B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (Eds) Eco-Labelling in Fisheries, What Is It All About? pp. 14–33. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. McGoodwin, J.R. (1994) Nowadays, nobody has any respect: the demise of folk management in a rural Mexican fishery. In: C.L. Dyer & J.R. McGoodwin (Eds) Folk Management in the World’s Fisheries: Lessons for Modern Fisheries Management, pp. 43–54. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO. Ramade, M. & Garcia, R. (2005) A report on market characteristics of the Baja California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus). Unpublished report. Fisheries and Commercialization Departments, Federaci´on Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera Baja California, F.C.L. (FEDECOOP). Ensenada, B.C., M´exico. Scharer, R. (2001) A small start. Samudra, 29, 26–29. SCS (2005) A pre-assessment of the Seri community jaiba fishery in Mexico. Unpublished report. Scientific Certification Systems, Emeryville, CA.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:58

Chapter 16

New England Aquarium: Supporting Environmentally Responsible Seafood Choices Heather Tausig, Michael Tlusty, Lydia Bergen, Gregory Stone and Kathleen Szleper

16.1 The New England Aquarium The New England Aquarium, a private, non-profit education, research and conservation institution, opened in Boston in 1969, and currently hosts over 1.25 million visitors each year. As one of the earliest modern aquaria, it is known for its high quality live animal and habitat exhibits, engaging hands-on science education programmes, and worldwide aquatic conservation and research initiatives. In 1992, concerns about increasing threats to the environment led New England Aquarium trustees to adopt a new conservation-oriented mission – ‘to present, promote and protect the world of water’. In 2004, the Aquarium’s vision statement was expanded to increase the institution’s conservation mandate – to be a place to discover the blue planet and a force for lasting change in the world’s oceans. The increased focus on global ocean conservation created an important role for the conservation and research departments of the Aquarium in meeting the challenges associated with the expanded vision and mission. The Aquarium’s conservation initiatives are now centred in the Division of Global Marine Programs and focus on conservation policy, education, and fisheries science through projects that involve policy-makers, scientists, commercial fishermen, corporations, and the public in finding solutions to help resolve aquatic conservation problems. The efforts of Global Marine Programs staff to engage in a number of research- and community-focused initiatives over the past two decades have contributed to the Aquarium’s reputation as a fair broker of information and a trusted facilitator, particularly around local and global fisheries issues. It is this reputation that facilitated the creation of the Aquarium’s work advising corporations on sustainable seafood issues.

322

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:58

New England Aquarium: Supporting Environmentally Responsible Seafood Choices

323

16.2 The Aquarium’s programme The New England Aquarium works to protect critical marine resources by partnering with major seafood buyers to help them identify and source environmentally responsible seafood. This programme was one of the first initiatives by a nongovernmental organisation (NGO) to partner with a multinational corporation to advance ocean conservation through influencing seafood procurement. It was initiated in 2000 when the Aquarium formed a partnership with the food retailer Royal Ahold to improve the sustainability of its seafood products. Royal Ahold is currently the world’s sixth largest food retailer and food service group with annual sales in excess of US$77.5 billion in 2006, and is the parent company of several retail and food service organisations in Europe and the US. Ahold USA is their retail branch in the US and, as the founding partner, has publicly referred to the R programme. partnership as the ChoiceCatch Ahold USA operates four supermarket chains in the US and serves about 20 million customers per week. In an effort to streamline their seafood purchasing, Ahold USA has centralised the seafood procurement operations for all their supermarkets, and this has facilitated the Aquarium’s ability to influence the seafood sourcing operations within the company. The Aquarium works to support Ahold USA as it develops and implements realistic sourcing practices that ensure environmental accountability throughout the supply chain. By doing so, the Aquarium helps Ahold USA use its buying power to encourage fishers and fish farmers to make proactive changes that favour the environment. As part of the partnership with Ahold USA, Aquarium scientists conduct research on the seafood species Ahold USA sells in its stores and, after analysing this information, develop buying recommendations. The research is conducted at the level of distinct populations, or stocks, for wild-caught species, and at the level of specific aquaculture operations, or farms, for farmed fish, shellfish and crustaceans. Buying recommendations are then passed on to Ahold USA’s Perishable Procurement Organisation for consideration and implementation in the company’s buying strategies. This approach promotes resource stewardship by supplying wholesalelevel seafood buyers with the best available scientific information to enable them to incorporate environmental responsibility into their purchasing decisions. The programme has the potential to influence large-scale buying patterns and to improve marine conservation on a global scale because of Ahold USA’s significant influence in the seafood industry and market, and because of the short- and long-term opportunities to share the Aquarium’s scientific research and analysis with additional players in the industry. This potential for significant influence on the long-term viability of marine resources was the basis for the development of the corporate seafood advisory programme. At the time when the Ahold USA–Aquarium partnership was initiated in

BLBK019-Ward

324

June 25, 2008

9:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

2000, the Aquarium staff were focused solely on wild-catch seafood species. But since 2003, the Aquarium has devoted more resources to address issues concerning farmed seafood species, and the environmental aspects of farmed seafood will continue to increase in buying recommendations in coming years. The Aquarium’s ability to influence seafood supply chains has increased recently through an expanded relationship with seafood suppliers. Increased interactions with suppliers have occurred as a direct result of our work with Ahold USA, but also indirectly through the programme’s increased exposure (through attendance at international meetings and tradeshows) and reputation (through word-of-mouth exchanges within the industry and conservation community). Seafood processors and suppliers play a critical role in ensuring the long-term viability of seafood resources. In addition to increasingly strong relationships with various seafood suppliers from many sectors (from wild to farmed and local to global), the Aquarium has also developed new relationships with potential retail partners that are interested in addressing seafood sustainability concerns. These dialogues have facilitated the Aquarium’s involvement in advisory and oversight committees, contracted scientific research and wide-ranging discussions regarding potential strategic partnerships. In general, the seafood industry’s interest in seafood sustainability has followed efforts by the conservation community over the past decade to change purchasing practices of individual consumers, chefs and, in a few cases, companies to address the concerns about declining marine resources (Johnston et al. 2000, Brownstein et al. 2003). While the seafood supply chain is complicated by multiple players and a global distribution network, directed collaborative action among conservation organisations and dedicated efforts by corporations are critical to create a viable, environmentally responsible supply of seafood that can be sustained into the future.

16.3 Encouraging increased fishery performance The Aquarium’s approach towards improving the environmental responsibility of seafood supply chains is based in a philosophy that encourages industry partners to both implement and advocate for positive changes in fishery management and farming practices. To evaluate the relative environmental performance of each seafood product, Aquarium staff have developed decision-ranking tools to compare individual stocks of the same species and individual aquaculture operations. These tools enable Aquarium staff to clearly and consistently recommend fisheries and farms that attain the highest relative rankings, and to identify the areas where specific fisheries and farms diverge in environmental performance. In this way, operations that rank lower are encouraged to alter or adjust their practices to increase their ranking and ultimately become more favourable sources (Figure 16.1).

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:58

New England Aquarium: Supporting Environmentally Responsible Seafood Choices

325

Corporate partner pre-assessment

ADRT

Change practices

Third party farm audit/affidavit

Review/interpretation

Best ranking 1º Source

Buyer decision

Lower ranking 2º Source

Change practices

Lowest ranking Do not source Figure 16.1 Flow chart describing the aquaculture decision-ranking tool (ADRT) assessment scheme. The ADRT is used by independent third parties to audit aquaculture operations. The data from this audit are returned to the Aquarium team for evaluation using the ranking system described in this document. Recommendations regarding primary and secondary sources are determined based on the ADRT rankings and forwarded to our corporate partners. Secondary sources have the opportunity to prove to the buying corporation that positive changes in operational practices have occurred to increase their ranking. Lowest-ranked operations, upon positively changing their practices, can have their operation re-audited by an independent third party for further consideration as a product source. The operations that rank best will have to be audited regularly to assure they maintain the integrity of their operation.

Discrete fishery units (which may be defined as a stock, population, fishery, national jurisdiction, management area or fishery sector) may each be managed differently and the associated fishing industries may have different impacts on the surrounding environment. Similarly, individual aquaculture operations are managed differently within and across species and geographic locations, and the impacts of

BLBK019-Ward

326

June 25, 2008

9:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

each operation will vary depending on many factors. The decision-ranking tool allows for such differences in species-specific fishery units and farms to be identified and evaluated against one another. There is the potential to consider rankings across species; however, the ranking tool is currently used to formulate recommendations based on the distinguishing characteristics of each species-specific operation. Corporate partners can then use both the recommendations and the information derived from the ranking tool to motivate competition between individual operators to improve in specific areas as identified through the ranking process. The ultimate outcome of this type of system is the utilisation of market mechanisms to encourage incremental change and improvement. To employ the ranking tool, research is conducted on each wild-catch fish stock or aquaculture operation under consideration. In the case of wild-catch fish species, reports are created for each stock in question. For farmed species, an evaluation module is created for each species that defines the data needed and allows for individual farms to be compared. The information sources used to evaluate the individual fishery units and formulate the farmed species modules include federal, state and international data, stock assessment reports, independent academic research papers, and trade and conservation group publications, as well as personal communications with scientists, fishery managers, fishermen and the conservation community. The categories of information used by the Aquarium to evaluate individual fisheries and farms are consistent with those used by other conservation organisations that evaluate seafood sustainability including the Monterey Bay Aquarium (2007), Environmental Defense (2007) and Blue Ocean Institute (2007). The major areas of consideration for wild-caught fish are stock status, fishery management, endangered species bycatch, habitat impacts and target and non-target species bycatch. For farmed species, the areas of consideration are performance-based measures including farm outputs (e.g. waste streams), farm inputs (e.g. feed utilisation), fish health, impacts to other species and the recent inclusion of new metrics including energy utilisation and carbon footprint. After information in each of these areas is collected for a species report (in the case of wild fish) or synthesised for the aquaculture module (in the case of farmed seafood), it is then evaluated in terms of a ‘decision point’ for incorporation into the decision-ranking tool.

16.4 The Aquarium’s decision-ranking tool The decision-ranking tool applies a hierarchical structure to the order in which the areas of consideration are assessed. In general, the hierarchy for wild-catch fisheries begins with metrics indicating the health of the fishery. This is based on the assumption that a ‘healthy’ fishery is a requirement prior to further consideration. For aquaculture operations, the hierarchy begins with specific directed and localised impacts immediately controlled by the farm. Subsequently (for both

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:58

New England Aquarium: Supporting Environmentally Responsible Seafood Choices

327

Table 16.1 The decision points (DPs) associated with the wild fisheries and aquaculture decision-ranking tools. Wild fisheries DPs 1. Stock status 2. Fishery management 3. Endangered species bycatch 4. Habitat impacts 5. Target and non-target bycatch

Aquaculture DPs 1. Farm outputs (effluents) 2. Farm inputs (therapeutants, feed, chemicals) 3. Impacts to other species 4. Fish health (disease and welfare) 5. Production and energy considerations

wild-capture and aquaculture operations), the scope of the hierarchy widens to consider ecosystem impacts and broader environmental considerations (Table 16.1). When the data are collected for each of the areas of consideration or decision points (DPs), they are evaluated and assigned to one of three possible outcomes. This aids in the graphical presentation of the results (Figures 16.2 and 16.3), as well as provides a method to reconcile both quantitative and qualitative data. In order to evaluate each DP, the information collected for each fishery unit or farm is used to answer a series of questions that determine how each DP is ranked (Figure 16.1). There are three possible outcomes for each DP: best available (BA), satisfactory (S), and minimal (M). A BA decision indicates that the fishery or farm utilises the most environmentally responsible, proactive measures; an S decision indicates moderate impacts or the use of adequate, reactive measures; while an M decision indicates that the fishery needs dramatic improvement with respect to the DP. There would be a BA outcome for a wild-catch fish DP if, for example, there is an abundant stock that is not overfished and where overfishing is not occurring.

Figure 16.2 The wild fisheries decision-ranking tool. Each fishery unit is assessed within each decision point (DP) as utilising best available (BA), suitable (S), or minimal (M) practices. Each DP has a minimal acceptable standard (MAS), below which a fishery unit is relegated to a do not buy (DNB) status. The three lines indicate the hypothetical ranking of three different stocks of the same species. The final assessment outcome for a specific fishery unit is its position on the scale at the bottom of the hierarchy, ranging from lowest (MAS) to highest (BA).

BLBK019-Ward

328

June 25, 2008

9:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

Figure 16.3 The aquaculture decision-ranking tool. Each farm is assessed within each decision point (DP) as utilising best (B), suitable (S) or minimal (M) practices. Other notation is as for Figure 16.2.

An example of a BA outcome for a specific DP for a fish farm would be if there were no significant chemical or therapeutant inputs. Within each DP, there is also a ‘minimal acceptable standard’ (MAS). If a stock is heavily overfished, displays patterns of heavy overfishing or severe depletion, and does not have a rebuilding plan or shows evidence of rebuilding, then it would fall below the MAS and be ranked as ‘do not buy’ (DNB). Provided that a given fishery unit or farm meets the MAS in each DP, then it would continue to be evaluated within individual DP-specific decision sub-matrices (not shown here) to assess its performance. Once an outcome for each DP is determined, it is marked on the graphical depiction of the relevant decision-ranking tool (Figures 16.2 and 16.3) as an arrow leading down one of the BA, S, M or DNB outcome paths. Each of these paths leads to the next DP that is then evaluated independently. As decisions are determined for each DP, the ranking path is created and the arrow moves towards the base of the decision-ranking tool and the final outcome. While the categories of BA, S and M are qualitative and rather broad, it is possible through the analysis of benchmark data to distinguish between operations at a finer scale as needed. For example, if two fishery units have similar characteristics and fall out on the same decision path, it would be possible to revisit each unit and tease apart each DP in more detail to examine any differences between the fishery units. In the case of farmed species, there is a greater opportunity to collect quantitative data to distinguish between two operations, making it possible to rely on specific outcome values to differentiate between seafood sources. The ranking on the decision tool may not change, but these subtle differences can be incorporated into the recommendation forwarded to the corporate partner. Due to the hierarchical nature of the decision-ranking tool, each DP does not have the same importance in determining the best practices of a farm or fishery, which is why they are addressed in their specified order (Table 16.1). DPs that are

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:58

New England Aquarium: Supporting Environmentally Responsible Seafood Choices

329

considered to be most fundamental to the environmental sustainability of a species or farming operation are considered first and thus have a relatively larger effect on the final outcome for that fishery unit or farm. This is shown graphically in Figures 16.2 and 16.3, where the horizontal spacing between BA, S and M for DP1 is much greater than it is for DP5. This hierarchical system is an alternative to the need for numerical scoring and weighting values, although as discussed above, more quantitative scoring can be introduced, if required.

16.4.1 Wild fisheries decision-ranking tool The hierarchical structure of the decision-ranking tool places the greatest weight on those factors considered first, and since both stock status and fishery management are so essential to a fishery’s long-term viability, the wild fisheries decision-ranking tool (WDRT) starts with stock status (DP1) and fishery management (DP2) in evaluating an individual fishery unit. The health of the stock, depletion definitions, control rules and stock assessment protocols are evaluated within DP1. DP2 evaluates the nature of the fishery management plan (e.g. precautionary versus reactive); monitoring, reporting, research and enforcement methods in the fishery; and stock rebuilding measures. Stock status and fishery management were selected as the most significant DPs for wild-catch fisheries. The independent outcomes of these two DPs are combined in an additive model with five solution paths (Figure 16.4). The result is a single ranking that is entered into the WDRT at the top level (see Figure 16.2). From there, each subsequent DP is assessed sequentially as discussed above. The bycatch of endangered species, often described as ‘incidental take’, is assessed in DP3. According to the US Endangered Species Act of 1973, the ‘take’ of

Figure 16.4 Merging the evaluation of DP1 (stock status) and DP2 (fishery management) within the wild fisheries WDRT. The respective outcomes from DP1 and DP2 are combined in an additive model yielding five solution paths. The result is then placed into the main matrix (Fig. 16.2) prior to continuing with the evaluation of DP3 through to DP5.

BLBK019-Ward

330

June 25, 2008

9:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

an endangered or threatened species means ‘to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect’ any such species, ‘or attempt to engage in any such conduct’. Recognising this and other criteria including the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List, DP3 considers the ‘take’ of endangered or threatened species as well as the efficiency of the management measures implemented to minimise such impacts. Habitat impacts are assessed in DP4 and may vary depending upon the sensitivity or vulnerability of the habitat fished, fishing practices and fishing gear used. Due to the variety in the types of possible habitat impacts, in DP4 these are considered as any reported habitat conversion, degradation or loss due to fishing methods and/or gear, together with the distribution and intensity of such impacts, and the mitigating actions. Finally, DP5 addresses bycatch as it relates to all incidental catches or reported interactions with non-legal target species and all other non-target species, including those landed and discarded. This takes into account the reported presence and amount of target and non-target species bycatch in the fishery as well as the presumed extent and effectiveness of the management measures devised to avoid or minimise target and non-target bycatch, as required by national and international law. DP5 also considers, to the extent possible, relative degrees of harm induced by capture or gear interactions as a means of estimating unaccounted mortality of discards or other animals that might have encountered gear during fishing operations.

16.4.2 Aquaculture decision-ranking tool The philosophy of ‘think globally, act locally’ was central to the creation of the aquaculture decision-ranking tool (ADRT). It is a fundamental tenet of sustainable development that many large global environmental threats should be resolved through local approaches: ‘although environmental issues should be treated conceptually in a holistic rather than in an isolated manner, efforts at sustainable development should be based in the context of the ways in which individual communities operate’ (Jalal 1993). One of the primary goals of the Aquarium’s programme is to foster ocean conservation through positive changes in the seafood industry. Since proactive changes usually first occur at the local level, local environmental impacts are considered prior to global impacts. A similar approach is used with temporal issues – factors having impacts that occur over shorter time intervals are considered before, and weighted more heavily, than those that occur over longer time periods. The rationale for this approach is that local impacts are more likely to be under the control of the specific farming operations and more easily corrected by proactive local managers (FAO 2006a). Likewise, impacts that occur over shorter time intervals require more immediate attention as they will become problematic more quickly. With a focus on achieving ocean conservation through incremental positive change, the Aquarium uses the ADRT to first address the local environmental impacts of fish farming and subsequently considers the larger global issues.

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:58

New England Aquarium: Supporting Environmentally Responsible Seafood Choices

331

A second organisational philosophy of the ADRT is the concept that a best ‘B’ ranking (see Figure 16.3) is often synonymous with an ideal operating condition, or no impact. In a real world scenario, such a practice may be nearly impossible to attain. However, this strict definition of ‘best’ remains as one of the ranking options in the ADRT in order to serve as a reminder of the performance level and management practices towards which the industry should strive. In the practical application of the ADRT, the first DP, output controls and effluent (Figure 16.3), considers ecosystem impacts located immediately surrounding the farm. While national, local and corporate rules and regulations controlling site choices are central to determining overall farm impact (Levings et al. 1995), they are not evaluated within the ADRT because this programme assesses performancebased standards, and not policies or regulations. A farm’s impacts on the benthic habitat below net pens are impacts that the farm can take immediate action to decrease by reducing wastes (Holmer et al. 2005). Within DP1, benthic parameters, such as redox potential and sulphides, are assessed first because of the shorter time scale over which those impacts can occur (Hargrave et al. 1995). Longerterm impacts would include changes to the diversity of benthic infauna beneath the cages (Holmer et al. 2005). Excessive benthic impacts would indicate an improperly sited or mismanaged farm and a situation that would quickly translate into other ecosystem, fish health and overall corporate performance impacts (Lumb 1989). As an example, the B, S and M ranking are as follows: B: sulphide concentrations would always be equivalent to that of a reference station (with the reference station matched for sediment physiochemical properties); S: would have an impact from slightly increased sulphide concentrations; and M: would have greatly increased sulphide concentrations. DP2 considers farm inputs – additions to the production system such as feed utilisation and sources, therapeutant usage and strategies including treating external parasites such as sea lice, and chemical treatments associated with net and cage cleaning and maintenance. Within the spirit of the hierarchical assessment, the fish oil and fishmeal (feed) usage is assessed at several levels. The use of fish oil is assessed prior to fishmeal because of the lower conversion rate from fish products, and oil is a more dominant limiting factor than meal (Tacon et al. 2006). For both these factors, the minimisation of ‘wild fish use’ (fish oil and meal from wild-capture fisheries) is taken into account, and when combined with a feed conversion ratio, this determines the outcome for use of fish oil or fishmeal in the diet. DP2 also considers the amount of therapeutants used in treating internal diseases as well as the treatment strategy (e.g. cage management schemes) and external parasite treatments and strategies. An MAS is determined for each point based on the treatment rates and the therapeutants and chemicals used. A DNB condition outcome from DP2 would include sourcing fish oil and fishmeal from overfished wild populations or where overfishing is occurring.

BLBK019-Ward

332

June 25, 2008

9:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

DP3 and DP4 consider impacts on other species (e.g. escapes and predator mortalities) and fish health (e.g. disease and fish welfare). DP5 is now being used to gather data for new metrics (such as, the energy used in production and distribution (Troell et al. 2004)) that are being evaluated as potential methods to further assess seafood sustainability. All the DPs within the ADRT will be evaluated, updated and re-ordered to respond to new information, the development of new technologies, the emergence of new potential threats and/or the elimination of current negative impacts.

16.5 Applying the decision-ranking tool to business recommendations The ultimate outcome of each fishery unit or aquaculture operation’s decision path on the decision-ranking tool graphic indicates the relative environmental responsibility of that fishery or farm. Those fisheries or farms whose outcome path ends up far to the right side of the decision-ranking tool’s bottom line are utilising the best practices overall; those whose outcome path is far to the left side need significant improvement. And, as mentioned above, any unit that has fallen below the minimal acceptable standard is sent further to the left and designated as ‘do not buy’. The spread of the decision outcome paths informs the recommendations to corporate partners. Closely ranked units indicate they are broadly similar whereas distantly spaced units are considerably different and may invoke a ‘shift sourcing’ recommendation, meaning that the higher-ranking unit (more to the right of the scale) should be given preference over the lower-ranking unit. In cases where the spread between units is significant, the recommendation may be to ‘source solely’ from the higher-ranking unit. When all the units under consideration fall out on the left side of the scale, indicating that they are only minimally passing, strategies are suggested to our corporate partners to shift sourcing away from this species to an alternative species or to a unit not previously assessed which utilises better practices. Thus, the sourcing recommendations reward those fisheries that utilise relatively better practices and have healthier stocks. A resulting shift in corporate purchasing habits towards these recommended units is meant to persuade the lower-ranked units to improve their practices to gain or retain the business of corporate partners. This decision-ranking tool system has a number of inherent benefits that make it suitable for utilisation with major seafood buyers. First, the programme focuses on best available practices in individual fishery and farm units. By acknowledging that there is a range of management methods, this programme will reward fishers, fisheries and producers that utilise better practices, while at the same time encouraging them to advance their operations towards practices that lead to even lower impacts, more accurate knowledge of the species and its environment, and healthier, more sustainable fisheries and farms. Second, the end ranking focuses attention on broad-scale issues and how each unit is inherently different. Only through a

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:58

New England Aquarium: Supporting Environmentally Responsible Seafood Choices

333

shift to better practices, a unit’s relative ranking will increase. Third, this system is relatively easy to implement. It is cost-effective because it does not require sophisticated computer modelling. Fourth, the non-numerical nature of this system eliminates the issues of minor variances in scoring procedures greatly affecting the final outcome. This also increases the tendency to focus on broad issues as opposed to concern over ‘grades’. Fifth, the decision rationale can be stated concisely thus simplifying information transfer and communication with the purchasing agent. Seafood buyers can receive a list of the preferred sources for a particular species enabling them to incorporate this information into their purchasing decisions and to discuss details with interested suppliers. Finally, this method does not challenge the results of, or a company’s commitment to, existing certification programmes such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) (Chapter 4), Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) (Chapter 5) or GLOBALGAP (Chapter 6). And, going one step further, if a retailer is sourcing from numerous stocks or farms which are certified, the Aquarium team may still be able to distinguish differences between the sources and to continue to reward the most environmentally friendly source. But most importantly, in dealing with stocks or farms that are not certified, this methodology enables the scientific team to identify higher-ranked sources that can be identified as preferred sources. This can result in bringing such species closer to certification or assist the corporate partner in determining the best ‘exit strategy’. In addition to the five major DPs that are utilised to determine environmental responsibility, there are other areas of potential interest to the corporate partners including, social and economic considerations. While this information does not have a formal place within the decision-ranking tool hierarchy, since it is outside the conservation focus and expertise of the Aquarium scientists, any significant issues or notable factors are identified and passed along to corporate partners for their further evaluation and consideration in their own decision-making processes. As analysts and third-party assessors of individual fisheries and farms, the Aquarium team believes it is necessary to consider all factors and provide as much information as possible to corporate partners so that they can be informed of current and predicted conditions within the potential sources. Each fishery and farming operation is individual and unique, and thus it is important to remain flexible in evaluating individual organisations as much as it is necessary to be fair and equitable in evaluating individual operations. The ultimate goal of the decision-ranking tool is to apply a rigorous and consistent methodology to each individual unit under consideration that allows cross-comparison while remaining flexible and able to incorporate information from multiple sources.

16.6 Expectations for outcomes In support of the Aquarium’s institutional mission to present, promote, and protect the world of water, the ultimate goal of the corporate seafood advisory programme

BLBK019-Ward

334

June 25, 2008

9:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

is to protect fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems. We believe that positively influencing seafood supply chains through the facilitation of partnerships with key seafood industry players and educating consumers is essential to this goal. Through this corporate partnership programme, the Aquarium believes the outcomes will be twofold. First, the consciousness of the seafood industry will be raised to support environmentally responsible seafood products. Second, consumers will have an increased awareness of the vulnerability of our ocean resources and have access to seafood products that have less impact on the marine environment.

16.6.1 Industry-related outcomes In working with seafood industry partners, the Aquarium has taken the approach that, while major buyers cannot recast their entire seafood supply chain overnight, they can take incremental steps to improve the environmental responsibility of their seafood products over time. In addition, the Aquarium expects that purchasers will have their own unique set of goals and challenges that will influence their ability to take certain actions and will affect the speed of those actions. So, because of the unique qualities of each purchaser and of each seafood species in question, the Aquarium team encourages both familiar and creative approaches to utilising stock- or farm-specific recommendations. Possible actions a seafood buyer can take include as follows: (1) completely stopping the sale of a species that the Aquarium considers to be non-viable in the short and/or long-term; (2) reducing the percentage of sales of particular species or sources – this may be through switching to an alternative source of the same species that is more highly recommended, switching to a completely different species or by reducing promotions; (3) increasing promotions of more sustainable seafood options and, possibly, introducing consumers to species they are not familiar with; and (4) engaging with fishers, producers, suppliers or policy makers to address areas of concern.

16.6.2 Consumer-related outcomes While the corporate seafood advisory programme is not a consumer-based programme, it can have profound influence on what seafood consumers have access to. Consumer education programmes have been the main focus of many groups in the conservation community, educating the general public about the best and worst seafood options from an environmental perspective. Since the mid-1990s, organisations including the Monterey Bay Aquarium (Chapter 17), Environmental Defense and Blue Ocean Institute, as mentioned earlier, have been distributing lists

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:58

New England Aquarium: Supporting Environmentally Responsible Seafood Choices

335

of seafood to the public that rate various seafood species along a range of ‘good’ to ‘bad’ for the marine environment. The Aquarium’s advisory programme is a step removed from directly influencing consumers, undertaking instead to influence the purchasing process and consequently the list of which seafood species retailers make available to their customers at the store or restaurant level. Although the Aquarium team has been operating ‘behind the scenes’ to help shift the procurement practices of its corporate partners, additional opportunities have emerged for partners to both educate the consumers and highlight the actions they have taken to be more environmentally responsible. As awareness of seafood sustainability grows, more companies will be interested in developing a marketing edge around actions they have taken. To date, Ahold USA has not implemented a full marketing campaign around the partnership with the Aquarium, but Giant-Carlisle does actively promote the ChoiceCatch programme in its stores. Giant-Carlisle, one of Ahold USA’s operating companies and a leading supermarket chain in the US, operates stores in Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia under the names of Giant Food Stores, TOPS Markets and Martin’s Food Markets. The initial roll-out of the programme in 2003 included media announcements, radio advertisements and in-store materials that introduced the project and highlighted the long-term economic and environmental benefits. In addition, Giant currently has a portion of its website devoted to the ChoiceCatch partnership (www.giantpa.com/shareddev/sharedcontent/Ecosound). No specific items are labelled as part of this marketing initiative, but Giant-Carlisle does share general information with its customers about the partnership itself and provides more specific information on a few species. The Aquarium can also play a supporting role for corporate partners interested in raising awareness about the issues and the partnership with customers as well as front-line and executive staff. This includes training for point-of-sale staff, contributions for the corporate website and other collateral materials, and strategic directions for new promotions highlighting the best environmental options. The potential for educating millions of customers about sustainable seafood through over-the-counter interactions is high, and training for point-of-sale staff and the distribution of collateral materials are significant opportunities for the Aquarium to raise awareness and facilitate even stronger corporate commitments.

16.7 New directions In 2000, few other conservation organisations were working directly with large seafood buyers to address issues of seafood sustainability – most groups were focused on educating consumers and certifying specific products for sustainability. Today, efforts by conservation organisations to work directly with major seafood buyers are growing, in part due to an increased interest by companies to

BLBK019-Ward

336

June 25, 2008

9:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

engage in this arena. With more than 7 years of experience working with large seafood corporations to improve the environmental responsibility of seafood supply chains, the New England Aquarium’s programme is one of the most mature industry–NGO partnership programmes. Support for the corporate seafood advisory programme is at the centre of a new Aquarium-wide strategic plan that defines solutions-based, partnership initiatives for conservation as central to the Aquarium’s work plan for at least the next 5 years. In order to strategically grow the work around sustainable seafood, the Aquarium is evaluating the programme’s successes and weaknesses to focus the efforts of the team and improve the programme’s overall effectiveness. In conducting this analysis, the Aquarium aims to evaluate how our strengths can best be applied to meet the needs of the seafood industry and to work in conjunction with the conservation community. Possible future programme opportunities include a growing emphasis on aquaculture, the addition of other corporate retail and food service partners, increased work directly with seafood suppliers and greater emphasis on collaborative work with other members of the conservation community.

16.7.1 Increased focus on aquaculture Statistics from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that seafood consumption is rising and the number of fish we can capture from the ocean is stabilising. It is clear that farmed fish are going to be increasingly important in the global marketplace to meet the growing demand for seafood, projected to double in the next 25 years (FAO 2006b).Recognising the potential for significant environmental impacts on the marine environment due to the rapid rise of aquaculture in the next several decades, the Aquarium sees a significant opportunity to facilitate, recognise and support the incorporation of the best management practices that minimise environmental impacts as the aquaculture industry grows.

16.7.2 New corporate partners After several years of working with Ahold USA, the Aquarium has gained considerable experience working with a large seafood buyer that must juggle multiple factors throughout its purchasing processes. The environment is just one factor that is considered in addition to matters such as price, quality, availability and customer satisfaction. Since environmental responsibility is not typically the only factor that drives business decisions, the Aquarium can assist companies in creatively incorporating this important factor that affects long-term business viability into their buying practices. This experience has provided the Aquarium with a unique perspective to work with other corporate partners as the interest in sustainability among the

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:58

New England Aquarium: Supporting Environmentally Responsible Seafood Choices

337

broader seafood industry continues to grow. The Aquarium expects to announce partnerships with additional seafood corporations in the near future.

16.7.3 Working with suppliers The ChoiceCatch partnership began as a programme that worked directly with seafood retailers as a way to create change further down the supply chain. As the Aquarium’s programme has grown and matured over time, we have had greater opportunities to work directly with seafood suppliers and see this trend as critical to having a continued positive impact on the environmental responsibility of seafood supply chains. Suppliers are often the companies that have direct relationships with the fish farms and the boat operators or processors and thus can potentially encourage greater shifts towards environmental responsibility. In the future, the Aquarium expects that its work with seafood suppliers will increase.

16.7.4 Increased involvement in collaborative efforts In 2006, the number of companies interested in addressing seafood sustainability grew significantly. This was reflected in the announcements by major retailers around the world that they were working to address the sustainability of their seafood, including the retail giant Wal-Mart and several of its subsidiary companies (walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=665). In addition, the National Fisheries Institute, the major advocacy organisation for the seafood industry in the United States, hosted a panel on sustainability at its annual meeting in October 2006 – the New England Aquarium’s programme was one of the three featured initiatives. This, together with increased numbers of stories about seafood sustainability in trade publications, more conservation organisations engaging with interested companies to educate consumers about sustainability and the expansion of the Marine Stewardship Council’s work, indicates a greater need for involvement by multiple parties and broader collaboration across businesses and conservation organisations. The Aquarium looks forward to supporting the collaborative efforts of the seafood industry and conservation community to meet this goal. The New England Aquarium is building powerful incentives to improve the environmental responsibility of seafood supply chains by supporting sustainable fishing, rewarding progressive action on the part of business and industry, and promoting programmes that encourage consumers to favour marine conservation. We consider that the Aquarium’s centrepiece for achieving these outcomes, the corporate seafood advisory programme, has the potential to become one the most effective strategic seafood sourcing initiatives.

BLBK019-Ward

338

June 25, 2008

9:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to the many different aspects of the programme and this chapter: Peter Cooper, Michelle Cho, Matthew Thompson, John Mandelman, Maggie Baker, Mike Errigo, Tracy Taylor, Aldin Hilbrands, Chris Kukay, Phil Bravo, Tracy Pawelski, Chuck Anderson, Craig Appleyard, Rick Sciulla, Ben Nordemann, Phil Walsh and David Rosenberg.

References Blue Ocean Institute (2007) Sustainable seafood. Available at: http://www.conbio.org/ cip/article44HCP.cfm [accessed on 3 March 2007]. Brownstein, C., Lee, M., & Safina, C. (2003) Conservation in Practice, Vol. 4, No. 4. Available at: http://www.conbio.org/cip/article44HCP.cfm [accessed on 3 March 2007]. Environmental Defense (2007) Eat smart main page. Available at: http://www.conbio. org/cip/article44HCP.cfm [accessed on 3 March 2007]. FAO (2006a) The state of world aquaculture 2006. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 500. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.conbio.org/cip/article44HCP.cfm [accessed on 3 March 2007]. FAO (2006b) The State of world fisheries and aquaculture. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.conbio.org/ cip/article44HCP.cfm [accessed on 3 March 2007]. Hargrave, B.T., Philips, G.A., Doucette, L.I., White, M.J, Milligan, T.G., Wildish, D.J. & Cranston, R.E. (1995) Biogeochemical observations to assess benthic impacts of organic enrichment from marine aquaculture in the western isles region of the bay of fundy, 1994. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2062. Holmer, M., Wildish, D. & Hargrave, B. (2005) Organic enrichment from marine finfish aquaculture and effects on sediment biogeochemical processes. In: B. Hargrave (Ed.) The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry Vol. 5, pp. 181–206. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Jalal, K.F. (1993) Sustainable development, environment, and poverty nexus. Asian Development Bank Economics and Development Resource Center Occasional Papers No. 7, Manila, Philippines. Johnston, R.J., Wessells, C.R., Donath, H. & Asche, F. (2000) measuring consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: an international comparison. Available at: http://www.conbio.org/cip/article44HCP.cfm [accessed on 3 March 2007]. Levings, C.D., Ervik, A., Johannessen, P. & Aure, J. (1995) Ecological criteria used to help site fish farms in Fjords. Estuaries, 18, 81–90. Lumb, C.M. (1989) Self-pollution by Scottish salmon farms? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 20, 375–379. Monterey Bay Aquarium (2007) Developing sustainable seafood recommendations. Available at: http://www.conbio.org/cip/article44HCP.cfm [accessed on 3 March 2007].

BLBK019-Ward

June 25, 2008

9:58

New England Aquarium: Supporting Environmentally Responsible Seafood Choices

339

Tacon, A.G.J., Hasan, M.R. & Subasinghe, R.P. (2006) Use of fishery resources as feed inputs to aquaculture development: trends and policy implications. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1018. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.conbio.org/cip/article44HCP.cfm [accessed on 3 March 2007]. Troell, M., Kautsky, N. & R¨onnb¨ack, P. (2004) Energy use in aquaculture. In: C.J. Cleveland (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Energy, Vol. 1, pp. 97–108. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Chapter 17

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme R

Jennifer Dianto Kemmerly

17.1 Introduction Monterey Bay Aquarium’s mission is to inspire conservation of the ocean. In doing so, the aquarium’s Seafood Watch programme is geared to empower consumers and businesses with the information they need to select seafood from environmentally responsible sources. The programme evolved from a group of concerned consumers willing to change their purchasing behaviours in support of ocean-friendly seafood. Today, Seafood Watch is a mature programme working with key audiences proven to create major marketplace change in favour of sustainable seafood. This grew out of two significant evaluations in 2004 and 2005 and subsequent planning efforts designed to ensure that our strategy was integrated with the activities of other US conservation organisations which are a part of the broader sustainable seafood movement. Based on our organisational strengths and the needs of the movement, we are working to better serve the audiences that are critical to creating a demand for, and supply of, sustainable seafood.

17.2 History of the Monterey Bay Aquarium® and the Seafood Watch programme Monterey Bay, which lies off California’s central coast, is one of the world’s most diverse marine regions. The upwelling of cold currents brings nutrient-rich waters to the bay supporting habitats ranging from dense kelp forests to submarine canyons thousands of metres in depth (Deans 1997). This spectacular area is federally protected as part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary that stretches along California’s central coast and includes 5300 square miles of ocean (NOAA MBNMS 2005). In addition, portions of the bay are included in a network of marine-protected areas mandated by the state of California. People from around the world are drawn to Monterey Bay’s jagged coast, its array of marine life and intriguing ecosystems. For more that 20 years, Monterey Bay Aquarium has made this intriguing undersea 340

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

341

realm accessible to visitors through approximately 200 galleries and exhibits dedicated to the area’s diverse habitats. But beyond a visual experience, Monterey Bay Aquarium is also committed to inspiring and empowering its visitors to conserve the world’s oceans. This ideal stems from both the aquarium’s founders and from the area’s rich fishing heritage. The aquarium was built on the former site of the Hovden Cannery located on historic Cannery Row (made famous by author John Steinbeck’s novel of the same name) (Plate 17.1). Cannery Row was a centre of processing for the Pacific sardine fishery that landed an average of more than 600 000 tonnes per season (Wolf 1992) at the height of the fisheries’ boom in the late 1930s to the mid-1940s. A few decades later, the fish disappeared. The collapse was attributed to oceanographic trends and overfishing. As a result, most canneries closed and the ‘Sardine Capital of the World’ became a ghost town. By canning squid, Hovden Cannery managed to stay open the longest, but it finally closed in 1973. In 1977 four marine scientists from Stanford University’s Hopkins Marine Station located on Monterey Bay proposed the development of an aquarium to highlight the area’s biodiversity. Together with local residents and members of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation the project was pursued, and in 1984 the Monterey Bay Aquarium opened its doors for the first time. The aquarium integrated some of the original Hovden Cannery architecture, and the entry features the towering boilers once used for canning fish. This exhibit shares the plight of the Cannery Row community whose lives were greatly affected by the interruption of the area’s balanced ecosystem. As visitors move through the many galleries of the aquarium, they are instilled with a sense of awe and, we hope, are inspired to take action on behalf of the oceans so that future generations can enjoy once again the many marine wonders and natural resources of Monterey Bay. However, the aquarium’s mission goes beyond the traditional role of generating awareness among the 1.8 million visitors each year; we also aim to transform these would-be consumers and businesses within our collective sphere of influence to become ocean advocates. The aquarium’s most successful and popular initiative for activating the public is the Seafood Watch programme. The Seafood Watch programme was established in response to a public outpourR ing of support during the temporary Fishing for Solutions exhibit (Plate 17.2). To many visitors, it was the first time they had heard of terms such as ‘overfishing’ and ‘bycatch’. The statistics were alarming, such as ‘25 percent of the world’s catch is discarded overboard’ but as the title of the exhibit demonstrated, there were solutions. Moving beyond shock value, the exhibit featured attempts made by fishers, scientists and resource managers to minimise the impacts of commercial fishing on the environment. The exhibit also emphasised that some methods of fishing were more environmentally friendly than others, and introduced the concept of reducing the demand for seafood from unsustainable sources. This concept also prompted the aquarium to look internally at our own seafood consumption. What most aquarium visitors didn’t realise was that the aquarium purchased hundreds of pounds

BLBK019-Ward

342

May 27, 2008

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

of seafood each year. Not only did our live-exhibit animals eat restaurant-quality seafood, but our on-site caf´e and event-catering department also served a wide variety of seafood favourites ranging from imported swordfish to Atlantic cod. The obvious question was raised: shouldn’t we be ‘walking our talk’? Therefore, the aquarium researched the species we served and, based on a rudimentary set of criteria, we developed an internal seafood buying policy. Both the animal husbandry and food service departments of the aquarium adopted a policy vowing to avoid selling species such as shark and bluefin tuna and to help build a marketplace demand for species from environmentally responsible sources. This created momentum and as aquarium staff and volunteers learned of the internal buying policy, many suggested that they too would be willing to change their purchasing habits while dining out and shopping. Intrigued by the interest, the aquarium publicly announced the buying policy and released a short list of seafood to buy or avoid in the form of cards that were placed on the caf´e tables. The cards rapidly disappeared into the pockets of visitors. It became evident that seafood consumers were not only interested in the issues, but were also willing to become more engaged by shifting their own buying habits to purchase seafood from identified sustainable sources. Therefore, the caf´etable cards evolved into pocket-sized cards so that consumers could conveniently carry a quick reference guide with them while shopping or dining out. In 2000, Julie Packard, Executive Director of Monterey Bay Aquarium, took the newly developed ‘Seafood Watch Pocket Guides’ on a media tour. These guides classified popular seafood into three categories: best choices, proceed with caution (which was later changed to ‘good alternatives’) and avoid. The concept received impressive media coverage, and there was a flurry of requests for the pocket guides from across the United States. At the same time, the aquarium’s colleagues in the marine conservation community were developing seafood initiatives of their own. The aquarium recognised it had access to a valuable niche in the budding sustainable seafood movement – to help reach a critical mass of conservation-minded consumers by educating and activating our visitors and to encourage zoos and aquariums across the US to do the same. So, in 2001 Monterey Bay Aquarium officially launched the Seafood Watch programme designed to raise consumer awareness about the importance of sustainable seafood production from both fisheries and fish-farming operations. The programme was developed to make specific recommendations about which seafood to buy or avoid, both online and in the form of regionally appropriate pocket guides that would be distributed via partner zoos and aquariums to help consumers become active proponents of sustainable seafood practices. These recommendations were, to the greatest extent possible, to be based on the most current available information. With funding from philanthropic foundations, the programme hired dedicated outreach and research staff who immediately recognised that the process of evaluating seafood in a global marketplace would take substantial time and resources. The simultaneous emergence of similar and complementary initiatives which later

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

343

defined the sustainable seafood movement also helped the aquarium define a role for the programme. The Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) standards for ecocertification and subsequent labelling were viewed as the gold standard for all seafood sources to achieve. The role of the Seafood Watch pocket guide and lists like it were considered to serve as interim tools while more MSC-labelled items entered the mainstream marketplace. To help coordinate the efforts of the various initiatives in the US, the Seafood Choices Alliance was developed. Seafood Watch, the MSC, Environmental Defense, the Blue Ocean Institute and others joined the alliance to increase collaborative research, ensure consistent messages were put into the public arena and to add momentum to the young movement. After 3 years of implementing Seafood Watch, an independent evaluation of the programme confirmed our success in changing consumer buying habits and influencing the seafood purchases of local businesses (Quadra & Galiano 2004). This information led to the development of a modified strategy that was reinforced by a 2005 evaluation of the overall sustainable seafood movement sponsored by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Seafood Watch would continue our role in raising consumer awareness to maintain issue salience, but to expedite the marketplace demand for sustainable seafood we would focus more attention on supporting businesses with considerable purchasing power who are interested in making a commitment to ocean friendly seafood sources. To support this work and to expand the aquarium’s contributions to the marine conservation community, a new division was formed in the aquarium – the Center for R the Future of the Oceans . The Center includes the Seafood Watch programme and other initiatives that support the mission of inspiring actions for conservation of the oceans, including the establishment of marine-protected areas and species-specific conservation efforts consistent with the aquarium’s pelagic research programmes.

17.3 Target audiences of the Seafood Watch programme The original mission of the Seafood Watch programme was to shift the buying habits of consumers to support sustainable fisheries and aquaculture operations. The effort targeted aquarium visitors who may be open to conservation messages. During our 2004 evaluation, an exploratory literature review helped us better understand consumer demographics, buying patterns and marketing strategies. As a result, we were able to confirm that the aquarium visitors’ profile was similar to demographic patterns among ‘green consumers’ and ‘early adopters’ of new innovations such as buying environmentally responsible products (Wolfe & Lilley 2004). It may seem odd to some visitors that an aquarium dedicated to conservation, education and appreciation of marine ecosystems would make seafood recommendations. But over the last 30 years, aquariums and zoos have evolved their mission from entertainment centres to conservation organisations utilising the live animal experience to create a personal, emotional connection (Yalowitz 2004). Monterey

BLBK019-Ward

344

May 27, 2008

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

Bay Aquarium’s mission to ‘inspire conservation of the oceans’ uses a strategy of raising awareness, increasing knowledge, developing conservation values, sharing ideas for conservation-related behaviours and empowering our motivated visitors with the tools they need to follow through with such behaviours (such as the Seafood Watch pocket guides) (Plate 17.3). This approach is consistent with a variety of models used in many marketing and promotional campaigns (Wolfe & Lilley 2004). Our success in moving visitors along this paradigm is evidenced by our annual distribution of 600 000 pocket guides through Monterey Bay Aquarium exhibits and on-site programmes. According to our monthly exit surveys, more than one-third of aquarium visitors take a Seafood Watch pocket guide (S.S. Yalowitz, unpublished observations). In this respect, it is important to note that distribution of the pocket guides is passive – the guide is either stationed at relevant exhibits or offered to guests to take if they choose. The high volume of pocket guide distribution at Monterey Bay Aquarium and at our partner sites may also be due to the public’s perception of zoos and aquariums as trusted sources of information (SCA 2003). And among the zoo and aquarium community, Monterey Bay Aquarium has established itself as a leader – the 2004 Zagat Survey for the US Family Travel Guide rated the Monterey Bay Aquarium as the best aquarium and the third top-rated overall family attraction in the country. Zoos, aquariums and museums have unique access to conservation-minded consumers and approximately 30% of the US population visits such institutions (Belden Russonello & Stewart and American Viewpoint 1999). It was therefore obvious that by partnering with these institutions, we were ideally positioned to reach an audience that is both significant in size and in its potential willingness to affect the marketplace in favour of environmentally responsible seafood. The Seafood Watch programme evolved further to enlist zoos and aquariums across the US to help generate awareness about the impact of our seafood choices and distribute regionally appropriate Seafood Watch pocket guides. Collectively, we considered that our activities would stimulate an increased demand for sustainable seafood across the nation. As visitors to Monterey Bay Aquarium and our partner institutions were exposed to Seafood Watch, ancillary audiences emerged. Businesses, including restaurants and seafood markets, were increasingly interested in purchasing products from sustainable fisheries and fish farming operations in response to both consumer demand and increased knowledge of the issues (which may also have resulted from increased media exposure and the efforts of the collective sustainable seafood movement). Major food service corporations also demonstrated interest in creating sustainable seafood purchasing policies, conducting educational training for their staff, leveraging their purchasing power among their seafood procurement brokers and stimulating conversations with seafood suppliers to affect change in production practices (see, e.g. www.cgnad.com/sustainability). As consumers began to respond, Seafood Watch and the broader movement needed to adapt to the shifting environment.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

345

Our 2004 evaluation was geared to help confirm our success and existing strategies to date, and to determine ways to move forward. To most effectively leverage the progress made, we needed to, first, determine whether the Seafood Watch programme was best suited to serve these emerging audiences based on our programmatic strengths; second, determine whether targeting these audiences would best serve the end goal of shaping a marketplace for sustainable seafood; and third, modify our current strategic plan to serve the relevant audiences. The 2005 evaluation of the broader sustainable seafood movement in the US identified a paradigm for success that aligned with our programme’s strategic planning. In short, salience-building efforts such as the distribution of pocket guides and other awareness-generating activities were critical to maintain the sustainable seafood movement. But more emphasis was needed on partnerships with major seafood buyers that would ultimately solicit a commitment towards sustainable seafood purchasing. To support this endeavour, a viable and secure supply of sustainable seafood would need to be identified. Seafood Watch, based on our own evaluation and that of the broader movement, drafted a Theory of Change to demonstrate how we anticipate creating a marketplace for sustainable seafood and ultimately improving ocean health (Quadra & Galiano 2004). Our modified strategy entails transforming the purchasing practices of major seafood buyers towards sustainable sources while continuing to build and leverage issue salience with seafood consumers and businesses. In order to achieve this result, the Seafood Watch programme has assumed the following chain of events for consumers and businesses:

r Consumers become interested in and take, request, receive and read Seafood Watch marketing material including our regional or national pocket guides;

r As a result, consumers become aware of seafood issues and may start to change their buying habits.

r Consumers therefore start asking questions and making requests of their purveyors (in businesses such as restaurants and fish markets).

r Purveyors become aware that consumers are interested in sustainability information and try to better identify and source their products to match that interest.

r At the same time, Seafood Watch and our partners approach purveyors with a practical, cost-effective programme to transform their seafood purchasing.

r The purveyors work with their suppliers (wholesalers, procurement brokers, etc.) to satisfy customer inquiries and their own interest and/or promotion.

r Suppliers eventually identify that certain purveyors will not buy unsustainable products and stop trying to market those products to that segment. Instead, they identify more sources of sustainable products. r At the same time, Seafood Watch works with partners in the movement to identify sustainable sources and production standards for large volume needs (shrimp, tuna, salmon, etc.). r If enough of those purveyors shift their purchasing towards these sustainable sources, the supplier will not have a need for the unsustainable products.

BLBK019-Ward

346

May 27, 2008

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

r The fishing/aquaculture/seafood industry will wonder why the supplier is not buying its product and may respond by either changing the harvesting practice to become more sustainable or shifting to a different form of fishing or farming; and r Less unsustainable fishing and aquaculture will reduce negative impacts on the oceans, thus improving overall ocean health.

17.4 Partnerships: Moving from awareness to action The Seafood Watch programme maintains approximately 150 non-profit and forprofit partnerships across the US, Canada and Mexico. Our partners range from zoos and aquariums to restaurants, retailers and food service corporations. Based on the partnership type, the institution or business may be responsible for distributing the regionally appropriate pocket guide, educating their staff, visitors or clients, shifting their own seafood purchasing towards sustainable sources, and encouraging businesses in their area or within their sphere of influence to make a commitment to sourcing sustainable seafood. Each partnership is formalised and strategically enhances our efforts to create regional ‘epicentres’ of Seafood Watch activity and ultimately help us implement our Theory of Change across North America. Monterey Bay was the original epicentre of the Seafood Watch programme, and soon after it was launched other aquariums, zoos and restaurants in the San Francisco Bay area began distributing the West Coast regional version of the Seafood Watch pocket guides, changed their seafood purchasing, developed special events and garnered media attention. Thus a new concept, an epicentre of activity, was created by Seafood Watch (Box 17.1). Shortly thereafter, Seafood Watch identified other institutions along the West Coast to distribute pocket guides and develop local outreach activities of their own. Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre in British Columbia, Canada, Seattle Aquarium and Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific were among the first Seafood Watch partner institutions. Today, they are some of our largest distribution points for Seafood Watch products, and with the encouragement of Monterey Bay Aquarium, they have developed sustainable seafood initiatives of their own. By creating Seafood Watch epicentres in major markets across the country, we are reaching a far broader, yet still conservation-oriented, audience. We encourage partners to personalise their activities to best suite their institution and their region, but the seafood recommendations and messages must be consistent. Much of our success in developing such partnerships can be attributed to the work of dedicated outreach staff that foster these relationships and share a variety of free resources and ideas during national and regional meetings, site visits, via a dedicated partner web page, regular e-newsletters, and through our DVD training programme. Collectively, we have distributed more than 20 million pocket guides and reached at least 45 million consumers since the inception of Seafood Watch.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

Box 17.1

347

The Epicentre Approach

Monterey Bay Aquarium was the original site of the Seafood Watch programme targeting the ‘early adopter’ audience, consistent with the characteristics and demographics of the typical aquarium visitor. The West Coast pocket guide was regionally appropriate and developed with the support of regional fishery and aquaculture experts. Soon, the Seafood Watch message trickled out beyond our walls and into our community as aquarium members, volunteers and regional visitors began spreading the word. An epicentre of activity was created. The demand for sustainable seafood moved beyond Monterey and into the San Francisco Bay area where many of our visitors either lived or continued their travels. By creating Seafood Watch epicentres across the US with zoo, aquarium and conservation organisation partners, the sustainable seafood message could reach a far broader, yet still conservation-oriented, audience. Today Seafood Watch partnerships exist in most major US markets. The types of activities may vary, but the seafood recommendations and messages are consistent. Seafood Watch surveys partner activities annually, and is preparing to survey consumer and business purchasing habits in select epicentres to help determine the most effective outreach strategies for the future.

17.4.1 Reaching consumers through partnerships When Monterey Bay Aquarium first explored ways to reach our visitors with the Seafood Watch programme, we considered putting the pocket guides into the hands of every visitor by way of inserting them into each visitor map, but decided on a very different and slightly passive approach. To ensure the information was going to be used, and not discarded, pocket guides were strategically placed in relevant exhibits that carried clear conservation messages. Nowhere in the aquarium are pocket guides randomly distributed. The guides are an integral part of conservation exhibits and presentations that present a conservation issue (overfishing, bycatch, etc.) and provide a very specific responsive action (use of the pocket guide) that people can easily adopt. The Vanishing Wildlife exhibit (2001 to the present) talks about the plight of commercially harvested pelagic fish such as tuna and sharks and bycatch such as sea turtles associated with the fishing gear. If visitors are intrigued as they peruse the exhibit, they have the choice of picking up the pocket guide as a tool for personal action (Plate 17.4). This strategy ensures that the pocket guide holder has acquired some background knowledge on the issues and has already made a preliminary commitment by merely taking the pocket guide with them of their own accord. These are our primary audience – the early adopters who are willing to take action on behalf of ocean conservation and perhaps spread the information to family, friends, and businesses within their community (Plate 17.5).

BLBK019-Ward

348

May 27, 2008

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

Seafood Watch encourages our regional partners to follow this model so that pocket guides are not randomly distributed, but are integrated into a conservation message or interpretation. Although zoos and aquariums are trusted sources of conservation messages, encouraging visitors to take specific seafood purchasing action is not typical. This concept made some institutions uncomfortable because they were worried how paying visitors would react, or if the conservation information itself would seem ‘preachy’. But research shows that the majority of visitors are interested in finding out more about conservation issues (Hayward 1997, Yalowitz 2002). During the partnership development process, it was clear that other institutions interested in launching their own sustainable seafood initiatives lacked the resources or expertise to support a full programme. Therefore, Seafood Watch sought continued funding to provide partners with free supplies of regionally appropriate pocket guides and supporting materials. To encourage institutional support, Seafood Watch offered to co-brand the pocket guides with the partner institution’s logo if the partner could commit to distributing at least 10 000 guides a year and conduct awarenessgenerating activities such as conservation exhibits, special events or other types of interpretation. To obtain support from the regions where Seafood Watch activities were to take place, we hosted working group meetings (see section 17.6, ‘Developing Regional Seafood Recommendations’). At present, among all regions of the United States including the West Coast, Hawaii, Southwest, Southeast, Northeast, and the Central US, the Seafood Watch programme maintains an average of 100 partnerships with non-profit organisations and informal educational institutions. The creativity, dedication and perseverance of these partners has contributed greatly to the fulfilment of our strategy and expected successes.

17.4.2 Reaching consumers through the internet The Seafood Watch programme hosts award-winning web pages at www.seafoodwatch.org (MUSE 2003). More than 850 000 unique visitors have perused our web pages and downloaded or ordered Seafood Watch materials. Our 2004 evaluation showed that 1 in 4 Seafood Watch pocket guide users visited the website to learn more about our recommendations, to check for updates, or to learn more about why choosing sustainable seafood is important (Quadra & Galiano 2004). For those early adopters interested in playing a more active role in sharing Seafood Watch information, we launched an advocate programme in 2006. More than 1500 consumers have made an online pledge to distribute Seafood Watch materials in their community. Each advocate receives a free action kit, including information to leave behind at restaurants or retail markets, fact cards providing talking points to help you communicate why certain items are on the ‘avoid’ list and an updated supply of regionally appropriate pocket guides. Each advocate registers at our website receives automatic updates; as our recommendations change,

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

349

materials are updated or new tools are made available (such as a house party kit including a 20-min film and recipes cards). A few months after the kit is received, advocates are emailed a survey document to record their activities. Their stories are shared online to positively reinforce their actions and motivate others.

17.4.3 Reaching restaurateurs Chefs and restaurateurs have consistently demonstrated interest in Seafood Watch and the broader sustainable seafood movement. In a 2004 survey of restaurants in Monterey, California, we learned that half of the restaurants changed their seafood purchasing in response to either consumer demand or knowledge of the Seafood Watch programme. In 2005 we launched our restaurant programme and today more than 25 local restaurants have stopped serving seafood from our ‘avoid’ list, train their staff about their commitment to sustainable seafood and how to respond to customer inquiries, and have improved labelling of seafood on their menus. We encourage all of our regional partners to work with restaurants, culinary schools and other food-related businesses in their communities to help build the demand for sustainable seafood. In addition to our local effort, Seafood Watch recognises the value of engaging celebrity chefs who can influence their peers in the restaurant/food service industry. R Since 2002 we have hosted the annual Cooking for Solutions event to celebrate sustainable cuisine. This brings together internationally recognised chefs, local chefs, sustainable seafood suppliers, organic food suppliers, retailers, the media, conservation organisations and the public to raise awareness about the impact of our seafood choices on the health of the oceans and the use of our purchasing power to support sustainable sources. This multi-day event annually honours a notable chef committed to working with sustainable seafood and conveying this message to their peers, and includes culinary celebrities such as Alice Waters, Jacques P´epin, Martin Yan and Rick Bayless. Each May the event draws almost 10 000 visitors to taste signature dishes prepared with sustainable seafood and other organic and environment-friendly ingredients (Plate 17.6). The weekend continues with an information fair of conservation and seafood industry organisations, free sustainable seafood sampling, cooking demonstrations, fishing gear expositions, off-site tours of aquaculture facilities and organic farms and a sustainable seafood cooking challenge. At the same time, we host the 1-day Sustainable Foods Institute seminar to educate the print, broadcast and Internet media. The attendees represent outlets from all aspects of the North American media (this includes Internet media), including USA Today, TIME magazine, the Washington Post, Nation’s Restaurant News and The Splendid Table (syndicated on National Public Radio). In 2006, we documented more than 50 subsequent media placements that previewed, covered or drew on themes and information provided over the seminar weekend including features in Coastal Living and Sunset magazines, and syndicated segments on PBS television

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

350

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

cooking shows. In addition, relationships formed during the event continue to establish the aquarium as a reliable resource, and we experienced an increase in interviews and mentions on related topics by USA Today, TIME and even in Oprah magazine.

17.4.4 Sustainable seafood for big businesses Bon Appetit Management Company is the major sponsor of the Cooking for Solutions event and in 2007 Delaware North Companies (ranked fourth in revenue by Food Management magazine’s Top 50 list) joined as a sponsor to demonstrate its increasing commitment to sustainability. Businesses have become a major audience for the Seafood Watch programme as the consumer demand for sustainable seafood has grown (Box 17.2). For some companies, reaching the triple bottom line (3bl) is certainly a motivator. The 3bl model calls for financial, social and environmental success, but there are concerns that such an ambition tends to ‘promise more than it delivers’ (Norman & MacDonald 2004). Therefore, we work closely with our major business partners to:

r ensure that their sustainable seafood purchasing policy is feasible based on an r r r r

analysis of current purchasing activity, purchasing needs, available alternatives and existing contracts or agreements with suppliers; ensure that the policy is consistent with the goals of the broader sustainable seafood movement; assist with the implementation of the policy including the development of educational and promotional materials and training programmes; in partnership with organisations within the broader sustainable seafood movement, identify new sources of environmentally preferable products/product types; and require a reporting mechanism to ensure the policy is successfully implemented and/or to work towards improving any compliance issues.

Major businesses purchase seafood in large quantities through brokers and suppliers so they have better access to, and are more accustomed to, information about country of origin and harvest method. Therefore, our research team conducts a more in-depth analysis and evaluation of fisheries and aquaculture operations for the species such as tuna, shrimp and salmon that are important to major food service companies. Some of this information (such as our chart of alternatives) is available on our website (www.seafoodwatch.org) on specific pages geared for businesses since such detailed resources may not be considered user-friendly by the average consumer. During the process of identifying environmentally preferable alternatives for our food service partners, we experienced a few positive surprises. First, we found that some sustainable alternatives were typically cost-neutral or cost-beneficial when compared to the price per unit for the ‘unsustainable’ item. It should be noted,

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

Box 17.2

351

A Seafood Watch Food Service Partnership

In 2001 Seafood Watch partnered with Bon Appetit Management Company, the first national US food service company, to develop a sustainable seafood purchasing policy. In 2002 the policy was fully implemented among the company’s 400 sites ranging from corporate caf´es to university dining programmes in 29 states. Based on this success, Bon Appetit created a non-profit foundation in 2005 to explore other sustainability initiatives and help promote sustainable seafood purchasing among the food service community. In partnership with the Bon Appetit Management Company Foundation, Seafood Watch secured a commitment from Bon Appetit’s parent company – Compass Group Americas Division, a food service giant ranked number one by revenue in 2006 in the US with more than 8000 sites in 2005, according to Food Management magazine. Compass Group’s US subsidiaries implemented the following policy in 2006: Shift purchases of Atlantic cod to Pacific cod, pollock or other sustainable alternative. Promote ‘best choices’ according to Seafood Watch guidelines Eliminate all ‘avoid’ list species (see exception below). Reduce usage of farmed salmon and (imported) farmed shrimp by 20%. Support positive changes in the aquaculture industry. Successful implementation means that more than £1 million of seafood will be sourced from environmentally responsible fisheries and fish farms. To help ensure compliance, we provide updated seafood sourcing information, educational resources and advice in the development of training materials. Strong communication with and among relevant corporate personnel has been critical for maintaining momentum around the commitment. We have also forged relationships with their seafood purveyors and procurement officers to remove items from purchasing lists and identified alternative sources. Finally, working with partners in the sustainable seafood movement, we continue to identify new sources of environmentally responsible seafood. In the future we aim to continue to strengthen the Compass Group Americas Division commitment while creating resources and opportunities for similar commitments by the broader food service industry. however, that the food service industry’s customers may be more accepting of replacements for various types of fish than are the customers at a white-tablecloth restaurant. For example, pollock, Pacific cod or tilapia could all be used for a breaded fish sandwich at a university caf´e instead of Atlantic cod. Whereas a highend restaurant in New England may have a more challenging time substituting the same products for one of their regional favourites. We also learned that our partners were very willing to leverage their purchasing power to ensure access to a viable supply of sustainable seafood. Typically, the

BLBK019-Ward

352

May 27, 2008

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

companies engage their food procurement brokers and major seafood suppliers at the beginning of the process when we are assessing their seafood purchases and needs. This allows us to work towards solutions with a knowledgeable and informed group of experts. It also conveys the sincerity of the commitment by our partner to their suppliers. For example, one major company told its more than 60 suppliers that certain items should not be sold to any of their accounts and that violation of this requirement would result in non-payment and even loss of status as a vendor. As a result of the sustainable seafood movement’s collective work with major businesses, a true market incentive for suppliers and producers to create a viable supply of sustainable seafood is being established. It also appears that we are attracting major businesses to make commitments and leverage their purchasing power with the intent of positively changing the seafood supply chain and harvesting practices.

17.5 Distribution of seafood purchasing recommendations The Seafood Watch pocket guide is the main venue for sharing our seafood recommendations with the public. In 2000, when the West Coast pocket guide was first developed, the aquarium distributed 50 000 cards mainly to visitors. But by 2003 the programme established partnerships along the West Coast and the number of regional pocket guides distributed was 20 times higher. In 2004, Seafood Watch launched a national, Southeast and Central US, version of the pocket guide, and in early 2005 the Hawaii and Northeast versions were released and our regional partners helped us distribute more than 5 million pocket guides. In 2006 we began work on a Great Lakes pocket guide with the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago and have commenced an analysis of common seafood used in sushi restaurants. The 2006 launch of the Southwest pocket guide helped us reach a milestone distribution of a total of 10 million pocket guides (Table 17.1). On average, our regional partners help us to distribute 2 million pocket guides a year, but occasionally opportunities arise to insert the national version of the pocket Table 17.1 The 2006 annual distribution of the Seafood Watch pocket guide by version. National US West Coast Central US Southeast Northeast Hawaii Southwest National Spanish West Coast Spanish Southwest Spanish

401 800 1 584 600 342 800 414 050 329 850 168 450 55 000 91 000 167 000 10 000

2006 Total

3 564 550

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

353

guide into magazines, mailings and retail products (ranging from wine bottle neck labels to DVDs) of either conservation organisations or businesses. This can create a major short-term increase in distribution as hundreds of thousands or even millions of pocket guides are inserted into the relevant product. In addition, we require the partners to include an accompanying article or information about why sustainable seafood choices are important, and where to learn more. For example, millions of 2007 national pocket guides were inserted into the DVDs of the Warner Bros. Studios animated movie hit ‘Happy Feet’. The DVD starts with a trailer about the impact of fishing activities on the environment and what consumers can do to help – leading into the use of the Seafood Watch pocket guide. Such opportunities have more than doubled the total distribution to more than 20 million pocket guides across the United States. The significance of increased pocket guide distribution is that consumers are continually exposed to the sustainable seafood message and provided with a tool for action. Whether they read about it in the newspaper, watch a documentary or get an updated pocket guide in the latest edition of their favourite magazine, we are maintaining issue salience and driving a consumer demand that major businesses are paying attention to. In addition to distributing hard copies of the pocket guides, almost 700 000 pocket guides have been downloaded from our website. Every seafood recommendation on the pocket guide is supported by an online fact sheet (accessed by a searchable database) and a detailed, downloadable, fully referenced, externally reviewed seafood report.

17.6 Developing regional seafood recommendations The Seafood Watch programme’s success in building partnerships and distributing pocket guides is the result of 6 years of intense and focused development, and the early decision was made to create seafood recommendations that were regional in scope and dynamic in nature. After publishing our first pocket guide in 2000, our colleagues in both the Monterey area and abroad felt that our recommendations needed to recognise the positive efforts of specific sectors of a fishery, even if they were only a subset of a larger fishery. Others were concerned that consumers would not be able to identify seafood that was taken with specific low-impact gear types, or that their seafood purveyor would not know the country or state of origin or whether the product was farmed or wild-caught. Seafood Watch saw this as an opportunity to create a marketplace demand not only for sustainable seafood but also for better labelling and information about seafood sources. The regionally specific pocket guides were developed to make recommendations about the most common and popular seafood items, and also to tempt the consumer’s palate to explore and support regional, and sometimes relatively unknown, seafood items, thereby creating an expanded marketplace for developing sustainable fisheries and fish farms.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

354

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

The early editions of the pocket guide had a West Coast focus that included the typical popular seafood items such as shrimp and tuna, but also regional favourites such as sand dabs and dungeness crab. The guide recognised that various gear types had a smaller ecological impact than others, and it encouraged users to look at the state, region or country of origin of their seafood choices. However, as the programme’s profile heightened it became clear that Seafood Watch would not continue to be successful without a high level of credible, transparent, sciencebased seafood recommendations. Collecting and analysing fisheries and aquaculture information in today’s global seafood marketplace, in addition to regional seafood markets, was acknowledged as a time-consuming task that would require qualified staff, a network of expertise and a dynamic process that allowed for an evolving methodology and criteria to evaluate seafood and regularly update the seafood recommendations. To develop and maintain this high standard, a science manager was appointed to oversee a team of fishery and aquaculture analysts to ensure that our recommendations are based on the best available science and are therefore defensible. A board of scientific advisors helped us to develop robust evaluation criteria, identified key fishery and aquaculture issues, and connected us with other experts in academia and industry. In addition, we hosted working group meetings in the regions for which we developed pocket guides including the West Coast, Northeast, Southeast (both on the mid-Atlantic and Gulf coasts), Hawaii and the Great Lakes. Each working group composed representatives from industry, academia, resource management, conservation organisations, and other stakeholder groups, and they helped us to identify:

r seafood to be evaluated in the production of a regional pocket guide; r issues surrounding the source fishery or aquaculture operations producing the seafood; and

r regional experts in issues relevant to the identified seafood and its fishery or aquaculture source. Regional working group participants also assisted by reviewing our analysis and evaluation summarised in seafood reports, providing comment on our seafood recommendations prior to publication of the pocket guide, or commenting on updates of the programme and any new or developing information. In addition, Seafood Watch has worked closely with partner organisations in the Seafood Choices Alliance who also develop seafood recommendations, such as the Blue Ocean Institute and Environmental Defense. Since 2001 we have shared our criteria, recommendations and supporting information to minimise discrepancies among seafood recommendations. It is important to note, however, that although we share information and receive feedback from our network of experts and our colleagues in the sustainable seafood movement, our seafood recommendations are solely the responsibility of Monterey Bay Aquarium and its Seafood Watch programme. Our evaluation criteria reflect

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

355

the ethics of Monterey Bay Aquarium and our recommendations, as they appear on the Seafood Watch pocket guides, may vary from that of other organisations with different institutional values and communication goals. Therefore, full consensus on the recommendations we make or on the sustainability of a specific seafood item may not always be possible among the sustainable seafood movement, the marine conservation community, and the seafood industry and resource managers.

17.7 Seafood Watch methodology for evaluating seafood Seafood Watch uses a standardised process, or methodology, to evaluate seafood. This process enlists Seafood Watch research staff, external reviewers and copy editors to help ensure consistency. Step I: Identify seafood to be evaluated. Market information is collected to identify the seafood products to be evaluated for regional versions of the Seafood Watch pocket guide. These include the most popular seafood items sold in the US and in each region, including both imported and domestic products. Sources of the market information include industry reports, contact with seafood development councils, informal restaurant and fish/supermarket surveys, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. The regional working groups have also identified local seafood favourites that may not be as common, but are representative of an area’s unique culinary tastes and help to personalise and regionalise the pocket guide. Step II: Assemble seafood information. Once a seafood item has been selected for evaluation, our research analysts gather the most current species, ecological, fishery or aquaculture information relevant to the criteria (see section 17.7.1). The primary sources of information include peer-reviewed, published journal articles, state and federal agency reports, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reports and other relevant government documents. Personal contact with a network of experts and regular attendance at relevant conferences and meetings are also essential activities in the information-gathering process. Such efforts sometimes help compensate for the time lag in published information, allowing us to consider the most up-to-date information or explore further if there are conflicting data. Step III: Create a seafood report. The information is synthesised and analysed in the format of a seafood report, and presents an evaluation of this information against the programme’s criteria for sustainability (based on our programme’s conservation ethic). As a result, the research analyst arrives at a strongly supported recommendation of ‘best choice’, ‘good alternative’

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

356

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

or ‘avoid’ for the seafood and its sources in question. All seafood reports can be found online at www.seafoodwatch.org by browsing or searching by seafood item. Step IV: Seafood report review. Each seafood report is internally and externally reviewed for scientific content and accuracy. External reviewers include academic scientists, resource managers and other experts associated with the species, fishery or aquaculture operation in question. In addition, an independent copy editor ensures that the seafood report adheres to our standard format is fully referenced and ready for publication online at www.seafoodwatch.org. Step V: Seafood Watch ranking session. Seafood Watch annually conducts a lengthy session where each research analyst presents his or her recommendations (including those for newly evaluated species or updated recommendations). The Seafood Watch research staff and programme director must reach internal consensus before finalising and publishing a seafood recommendation either online or in the Seafood Watch pocket guide. Step VI: Monitoring, updates and evaluation. Seafood Watch recognises that fisheries and aquaculture information is constantly changing and new findings emerge from ongoing research, management decisions and changes in the marine environment. In addition, the Seafood Watch criteria and methodology are continually refined to better reflect the nature of conservation science and conservation decision making. Therefore, the seafood reports and their subsequent recommendations remain dynamic and are updated as new information becomes available – any changes are posted on our website. The printed pocket guides are updated at least once a year and include a disclaimer directing users to the website for the most recent seafood recommendations.

17.7.1 Seafood Watch principles of sustainability and evaluation criteria Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardising the structure or function of affected ecosystems. The Seafood Watch programme believes that species from sustainable capture fisheries:

r have a low vulnerability to fishing pressure, and hence a low probability of being overfished, because of their inherent life history characteristics;

r have stock structure and abundance sufficient to maintain or enhance long-term fishery productivity;

r are captured using techniques that minimise the catch of unwanted and/or unmarketable species;

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

357

r are captured in ways that maintain natural functional relationships among species in the ecosystem, conserve the diversity and productivity of the surrounding ecosystem and do not result in irreversible ecosystem state changes; and r have a management regime that implements and enforces all local, national and international laws and utilises a precautionary approach to ensure the long-term productivity of the resource and integrity of the ecosystem. The following five sustainability criteria, corresponding to these principles above, help to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation for consumers and businesses: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure; status of wild stocks; nature and extent of discarded bycatch; effect of fishing practices on habitats and ecosystems; and effectiveness of the management regime.

The Seafood Watch programme believes that sustainable aquaculture operations must: use less wild-caught fish (in the form of fishmeal and fish oil) than it produces in the form of edible marine fish protein, and thus provides net protein gains for society; not pose a substantial risk of deleterious effects on wild fish stocks through the escape of farmed fish; not pose a substantial risk of deleterious effects on wild fish stocks through the amplification, retransmission or introduction of disease or parasites; employ methods to treat and reduce the discharge of organic waste and other potential contaminants so that the resulting discharge does not adversely affect the surrounding ecosystem; and implement and enforce all local, national and international laws and customs and utilise a precautionary approach (which favours conservation of the environment in the face of irreversible environmental risks) for daily operations and industry expansion. The five sustainability criteria corresponding to these principles to evaluate aquaculture operations for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation for consumers and businesses are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

use of marine resources; risk of escapes to wild stocks; risk of disease and parasite transfer to wild stocks; risk of pollution and habitat effects; and effectiveness of the management regime.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

358

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

For both capture fisheries and aquaculture operations, each criterion includes:

r r r r

primary factors to evaluate and rank; secondary factors to evaluate and rank; evaluation guidelines to synthesise these factors; and a resulting rank for that criterion.

The ranks for each criterion are summarised in a table and a resulting overall seafood recommendation is determined based on a set of additional evaluation guidelines (Plate 17.7). For capture fisheries A seafood product is ranked as a ‘best choice’ if three or more criteria are of low conservation concern (green) and the remaining criteria are not of high (red) or critical conservation concern (black). A seafood product is ranked as a ‘good alternative’ if the five criteria ‘average’ to yellow (Moderate Conservation Concern) or if the ‘status of stocks’ and ‘management effectiveness’ criteria are both of moderate conservation concern. A seafood product is ranked as ‘avoid’ if two or more criteria are of high conservation concern (red) or if one or more criteria are of critical conservation concern (black). The criterion ranks and the overall seafood recommendation are colour-coded to correspond to the categories of the Seafood Watch pocket guide as follows: Best choices/green: Consumers are strongly encouraged to purchase seafood in this category. The wild-caught species is sustainable as defined by Seafood Watch. Good alternatives/yellow: Consumers are encouraged to purchase seafood in this category, as they are better choices than the seafood in the ‘avoid’ category. However there are some concerns with how this species and thus it does not demonstrate all of the qualities of a sustainable fishery as defined by Seafood Watch. Avoid/red: Consumers are encouraged to avoid seafood in this category, at least for now, as they do not demonstrate enough qualities to be defined as sustainable by Seafood Watch.

17.7.2 Other information accompanying our seafood recommendations In 2004, Seafood Watch introduced a red asterisk onto the pocket guides placed beside those seafood items that carried a mercury advisory issued by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Advisories are public notices issued by the US federal government to warn consumers of potential health risks associated with specific foods or environmental

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

359

situations. For seafood, the advisories may, for example, recommend limiting the intake of identified species because of levels of heavy metals. The asterisks were placed on the guide in response to a survey of users who consistently requested the inclusion of public health information on the card (Quadra & Galiano 2004). Subsequently, in 2005, we partnered with Environmental Defense (ED) and modified the asterisks to represent consumption advisories about mercury or other contaminants as identified by ED’s Oceans Alive initiative (www.oceansalive.org/eat.cfm) whose robust methodology incorporates information from the federal government’s data sets. In addition, we included blue asterisks to identify those fisheries certified as sustainable to the MSC standard (www.msc.org) (Plate 17.8). Beyond the pocket guides, we convey this information wherever we share our seafood recommendations, including online and in materials developed for businesses. By directing businesses and consumers to the MSC-ecolabelled products, we are able to add hundreds of product types to the list of sustainable options when working with our business partners. As new products that meet our standards for sustainability of farm-raised or wild-caught seafood are identified, we hope to provide even more options for seafood purveyors.

17.8 Seafood Watch’s role in the seafood movement Seafood Watch activities are integral to the success of the broader sustainable seafood movement (see Chapter 7). Seafood Watch has traditionally been defined as ‘an education programme for consumers and “gatekeepers” – gatekeeper here refers to a business, such as restaurants and retailers, who sell seafood to the consumer and can communicate a marketplace demand for sustainable seafood up the supply chain.’ However, the role has evolved further based on the strategic direction established by our evaluations (Quadra & Galiano 2004, Bridgespan 2005) and a new Board of Advisors comprising experts along the seafood supply chain, major buyers, social marketers and fishery and aquaculture scientists. Ultimately, we felt that Seafood Watch could contribute to each of the elements of the sustainable seafood movement’s strategy in three ways.

17.8.1 Salience through context-setting activities Through our regional partnership strategy with zoos, aquariums and others, we are creating an undercurrent of awareness so that our colleagues in the movement can more effectively launch respective campaigns across the United States. Through our special events with influential chefs and the media, we have established ocean spokespersons and journalists who are keeping the issue salient. Increased awareness in regional epicentres, improved knowledge of what to buy and what not to buy in these areas and the transition of the early adopter’s buying habits continue

BLBK019-Ward

360

May 27, 2008

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

to serve the desired outcomes for Seafood Watch and strongly support the needs of the evolving sustainable seafood movement.

17.8.2 Increasing demand by bringing major buyers to the table The Compass Group North America commitment and subsequent implementation of a sustainable seafood policy has already affected the purchasing outcomes for more than 1 million pounds of seafood. Similar programmes with other major food service providers are establishing a new niche for our programme.

17.8.3 Creating a viable supply of sustainable seafood to support the demand To complement our efforts with food service providers and to increase the availability of sustainable seafood for the broader movement, we have leveraged our partners’ purchasing power to include new demands on their suppliers such as improving access to sustainable sources. In partnership with our colleagues at Environmental Defense, we are also stimulating the development of purchasing standards for environmentally preferable sources of seafood relevant to major buyers. In meeting with businesses and seafood suppliers, we are often reminded of the critical role of ‘issue salience’ and how all of these elements fit together. Not only have we observed an increased awareness of sustainability issues, but also an interest to ‘get off the red list’. The early successes of corporate commitments and the increasing array of sustainable seafood options are attracting new businesses to the initiative. Consistent with the broader movement’s strategy, maintaining issue salience, increasing demand for sustainable seafood and increasing the supply of more environmentally sound choices have proven to be key to our success. If each of these elements is fostered concurrently, we believe that Seafood Watch can indeed help shape the seafood marketplace for a sustainable future.

17.9 What does success look like? Success is a marketplace demand for sustainable seafood that provides financial incentives for the improved environmental performance of fisheries and aquaculture operations, ultimately improving ocean health. The Seafood Watch strategy entails transforming the purchasing practices of major seafood buyers towards sustainable sources while continuing to build and leverage issue salience with seafood consumers and businesses. We are already observing indications of success as more fisheries are applying for certification from the MSC, various standards for sustainable aquaculture operations are emerging and more corporations are developing sustainable seafood purchasing policies.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

361

We employ different mechanisms to measure the success of our partnerships, including our major food service partnerships (proprietary reports on implementation and compliance) and our regional outreach partnerships (annual surveys of outreach activities). The most comprehensive measurement to date, however, has been the evaluation of our outreach strategy in 2004 including the effectiveness of the Seafood Watch pocket guide.

17.9.1 Seafood Watch evaluation The effectiveness of our outreach strategy was assessed through an independent evaluation conducted by Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd and the Galiano Institute for Environmental and Social Research, between November 2003 and June 2004, and included:

r a review of the literature on approaches to promoting environmentally responsible consumer behaviour;

r key informant interviews with 57 partners, scientists, businesses and members of the seafood industry;

r six focus groups with 64 pocket guide holders; r a written survey of 726 Monterey Bay Aquarium visitors (as a pre-assessment of knowledge and purchasing behaviour) in November and December 2003;

r follow-up telephone interviews with 400 of the 726 Monterey Bay Aquarium visitors in February and March 2004; and

r telephone interviews with 26 local area restaurants, caterers and seafood retailers.

Who is using the pocket guide? The evaluation confirmed that the current users of the Seafood Watch pocket guide fit the demographic profile of ‘early adopters’ (Quadra & Galiano 2004). The demographics of pocket guide holders were also consistent with that of Monterey Bay Aquarium visitors, demonstrating that the zoo and aquarium platform is appropriate for tapping into ‘early adopters’ to build awareness for changing their buying habits and spreading this information to friends and family. The evaluators also found that people who demonstrated prior environmental behaviours, such as belonging to an environmental organisation, were much more likely to use the pocket guide. This discovery also supports efforts to partner with large, national conservation organisations that distribute the guides to their membership. In 2007 we launched a second evaluation to assess the impact and usefulness of the pocket guide among users in markets across the United States. This evaluation will also explore appropriate tools geared for the average consumer – beyond the ‘early adopter’ audience.

BLBK019-Ward

362

May 27, 2008

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

How are people using the Seafood Watch pocket guide? The 2004 evaluation found that approximately one-third of survey participants had a previous version of the pocket guide before their Monterey Bay Aquarium visit, and 68% of these pocket guide holders indicated that they had used the guide. In follow-up interviews, 91% of consumers who had the pocket guide stated that it had influenced their awareness or thinking in some way. More than three-quarters of respondents stated that the pocket guide had influenced their purchasing decisions. Ninety-eight percent of pocket guide users agreed that it helped them to think more about what seafood to buy or not to buy in stores or restaurants, and 86% agreed that it significantly changed their buying habits for the long-term. Pocket guide holders asked more questions to wait staff and seafood counter staff and checked more labels. Almost eight in ten respondents said there were seafood products they would buy less of because of the pocket guide. In terms of impacts on awareness or thinking, participants commented that the pocket guide helped to educate them, made them more aware of issues or the status of a particular type of seafood, made them question where their seafood comes from and how it was caught or verified their own beliefs on the subject. In the focus groups, written survey, and telephone follow-up interviews, pocket guide holders stated that they used the guide to make decisions about what seafood to buy and what seafood to avoid in stores and restaurants. Participants also used the guide to educate others, either by telling them about the pocket guide, handing out the pocket guide, or helping them with their seafood decisions in stores and restaurants. While the reported rate of use is probably somewhat inflated due to the sampling strategy (i.e. Monterey Bay Aquarium visitors who were willing to complete surveys, focus groups and interviews regarding Seafood Watch), there is no question that a sizeable proportion of consumers who receive the pocket guide are thinking about its message and are using it to make purchasing decisions. We also learned that only 38% of pocket guide holders actually carry the cards in their wallet. Almost 20% keep the cards in their kitchen, 11% in a drawer and 5% keep it in their car or at work. Another 18% could not remember where the card was. This suggests that consumers are memorising certain information from the lists and using the guide as a quick reference, and that Seafood Watch should consider producing a variety of products to meet the needs of this audience.

Are the pocket guides making a difference? People are using the pocket guide not only to make more sustainable purchases for themselves and their families, but are promoting the card and its message to others, so that the impact on consumer behaviour could be exponential (although to confirm this latter point, future evaluation is to be conducted). Pocket guide holders reported that they searched for additional information after visiting the aquarium

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

363

and receiving a pocket guide. Almost 40% mentioned that they had looked for additional information about environmental impacts related to fisheries or aquaculture. Additionally, although many had not actively sought further information on the topic, they were more likely to read about it if they saw an article written in the newspaper or a magazine on the subject, or they were more likely to pay attention if they noticed somebody talking about fisheries-related environmental impacts on television. Despite indications of a positive impact, it was apparent during the evaluation that many pocket guide holders continued to purchase some of the seafood in the ‘avoid’ list. For example, 1 in 3 pocket guide holders indicated that they had purchased farmed or Atlantic salmon since receiving their pocket guide, and another 12% indicated that they might have purchased this type of salmon (but were uncertain if it was farmed or Atlantic). Also, for some species that were the subject of a specific campaign by the broader seafood movement, including Chilean Sea Bass (‘Take a Pass on Chilean Sea Bass’, see Chapter 7), there was a small but distinct subset of pocket guide holders who continued to purchase these ‘avoid’ items (5%). This may be attributed to the fact that environmental concerns are not the most important determinant of consumer purchasing decisions. Environmental concerns follow freshness, taste, possible contamination and health benefits when consumers are choosing seafood (SCA 2003, and see Chapter 2). Price was also mentioned as a significant barrier; however, published literature suggests that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable seafood (Baldassare 2003). At the time of the 2004 evaluation, another significant barrier was restaurant and retailer’s inability to provide more information about their seafood selection including whether it was farmed or wild, where it was from and how it was caught. Consumers were unsure of what establishments they could shop at or eat in that were ‘on board’ with the sustainable seafood movement. It should be noted that in April 2005, new requirements issued by the US Department of Agriculture require large retailers to label unprocessed seafood items with the country of origin and whether the product was wild-caught or farm-raised (USDA 2004). In interviews with a small random sample of restaurants, retailers and caterers in the Monterey Bay area, about half were aware of Seafood Watch and 92% stated that buying sustainable seafood was important to them. When the evaluators inquired if customers were asking questions about the sustainability of their seafood, 77% answered yes, with the most frequent question being whether the product was farmed or wild. Almost half of the sample recalled customers actually using the Seafood Watch pocket guide. About a third of the sample reported that the frequency of questions about the sustainability of seafood was at least once a week. Half of the participants in the survey stated that they had changed their business operations in response to either customer demand for sustainable seafood or the Seafood Watch programme. Of those who said they changed their operation, 85% were familiar with Seafood Watch. A majority who had actually researched their seafood vendors had knowledge of the Seafood Watch programme. When the restaurants

BLBK019-Ward

364

May 27, 2008

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

and retailers were asked about their knowledge of issues around fishing and fish farming, those who knew more about Seafood Watch were more familiar with the issues. Those without familiarity of Seafood Watch knew ‘hardly anything’ or ‘nothing at all’ about the issues. Several businesses were making efforts to inform and educate people within their organisation in order to change corporate policy towards sustainable sources of seafood. In considering transition towards purchasing sustainable seafood, 42% of the restaurants and retailers surveyed mentioned cost as the main barrier. The second most commonly identified barrier was a lack of consumer education or consciousness, placing a burden on the restaurant or retailers not only to find sustainable sources, but also to educate customers about its worth and create a market. Lack of availability and convenience was mentioned particularly for wild-caught salmon and sustainable sources of shrimp. When asked if there were any obstacles or barriers that kept them from offering sustainable seafood, almost a quarter of the samples were unaware of barriers because they either served sustainable seafood all the time or did not know enough about sustainable seafood to be able to make a judgement. Despite these encouraging signals, it is difficult to assess whether the pocket guides are affecting overall sales of seafood since there are many factors involved in the seafood trade, including natural events, market trends, trade barriers, etc. Several interviewees from our group of experts and partners suggest that significant changes in markets, and ultimately fishing and fish farming practices, will not occur by changing consumer behaviour alone, but that these efforts need to be coupled with efforts aimed at changing government policy and at changing the practices of large suppliers (including food service, restaurants and retailers). This finding further supports the recommendations of the evaluation of the larger sustainable seafood movement (Bridgespan 2005).

17.9.2 Implications for the future of Seafood Watch The literature review segment of the Seafood Watch evaluation suggests that while most Americans are environmentally consciousness and committed, those attitudes and values do not always translate into responsible purchasing behaviour. Social marketing research has provided several useful recommendations for Seafood Watch. Green consumers are more likely to respond to the extent they think they know the issues and reasons for changing their behaviour. Although the pocket guides are helpful, additional facts should be provided. In response to this feedback, Seafood Watch created more marketing materials about seafood on the ‘avoid’ list, a Seafood Watch training programme (available on a DVD or online), and made substantial improvements to the content and accessibility of our internet resources. Outreach staff launched the Seafood Advocates programme and coordinate regular educational presentations for consumers, restaurants, retailers and other food service entities.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

1:56

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Programme

365

Green consumers will respond if the action is convenient and acceptable in terms of cost and effort. For example, pocket guides are convenient and easy to use, but endorsements of seafood purveyors and restaurants would reduce mental effort even further in choosing sustainable seafood. Therefore, Seafood Watch developed a local restaurant programme to identify establishments for consumers (a model we encourage our partners to adopt). In addition, we identify seafood products ecolabelled by the MSC (that are available in the retail marketplace) on the Seafood Watch pocket guides and online and contribute in an advisory capacity to businesses seeking to carry sustainable offerings, such as EcoFish (www.ecofish.com) and our partners in the food service industry. Green consumers want to perceive that their actions lead directly to environmental improvement. They want reasons and feedback on the effect of their buying decisions. Therefore, Seafood Watch is better utilising the internet to engage and communicate with consumers as evidenced by our Seafood Advocates programme. We distribute regular email newsletters that include individual success stories, announce new commitments from restaurants and retailers and provide periodic updates regarding any changes to the seafood recommendations to thousands of concerned consumers, partners and Seafood Advocates. Green consumers might respond more strongly if environmental issues are linked to health issues. In fact, consumers have expressed that it is Monterey Bay Aquarium’s moral responsibility to share such information if a ‘best choice’ or ‘good alternative’ recommendation is associated with public health advisories. In response, Seafood Watch has partnered with ED to include consumption advisories on the pocket guides.

17.10 Conclusions Seafood Watch has embraced evolution as a critical component of the broader sustainable seafood movement. As the sustainable seafood movement (Chapter 7) gains momentum, Seafood Watch will continue to create a positive shift in issue-salience, attitudes and behaviour through activities such as pocket guide distribution, aquarium education and our Cooking for Solutions annual event. Our regional epicentre partnership strategy will support the development of such campaigns in communities across the United States. An expansion of our work with major seafood buyers in the food service industry will continue to foster substantial transitions towards sustainable seafood purchasing. Continued research into international, national and regional fisheries and aquaculture will help identify a viable supply of sustainable seafood. The programme has established a financial strategy that enlists support from the Monterey Bay Aquarium, philanthropic institutions, donations from corporate sponsors, and reimbursement for some materials by our partner institutions, to ensure our viability into the future. Ultimately, it is our intention that this coordinated,

BLBK019-Ward

366

May 27, 2008

1:56

Seafood Ecolabelling

strategic plan continues to play a significant role in encouraging the seafood marketplace towards a sustainable future and improving ocean health.

References Baldassare, M. (2003) PPIC statewide survey – Special survey on Californians and the environment. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA. Belden Russonello & Stewart and American Viewpoint (1999) Communicating about ocean health and protection. An analysis of research for the ocean project. Belden Russonello & Stewart and American Viewpoint, Washington, DC. Bridgespan (2005) Seafood choices initiative evaluation. The Bridgespan Group, Boston, MA. Deans, N.L. (1997) A natural history of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation, Monterey, CA. Hayward, J. (1997) Conservation study, phase 2: An analysis of visitors’ perceptions about conservation at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. People, Places & Design Research, Northampton, MA. MUSE (2003) Silver MUSE Awards in Science 2003: Seafood Watch Online. Media and Technology Committee, The American Association of Museums, USA. NOAA MBNMS (2005) Ecosystem observations for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 2005. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Monterey, CA. Norman, W. & MacDonald, C. (2004) Getting to the bottom of the triple bottom line. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 242–262. Quadra & Galiano (2004) Seafood Watch evaluation: Summary report. Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd. and Galiano Institute for Environmental and Social Research, British Columbia, Canada. SCA (2003) The Marketplace for sustainable seafood. Growing appetites and shrinking seas. Seafood Choices Alliance, Washington, DC. USDA (2004) Mandatory Country of origin labeling of fish and shellfish; interim rule, federal register, 7 CFR Part 60, Part IV. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service, Washington, DC. Wolf, P. (1992) Recovery of the Pacific sardine and the California sardine fisher. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Report, Vol. 33. Wolfe, L. & Lilley, L. (2004) Seafood Watch Literature Review. Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd. and Galiano Institute for Environmental and Social Research, British Columbia, Canada. Yalowitz, S. S. (2002) Nearshore Exhibits Front-end Study. Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, CA. Yalowitz, S. S. (2004) Evaluating visitor conservation research at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Curator, 47(3), 283–298.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:0

Chapter 18

The New Zealand Best Fish Guide Barry Weeber and Cath Wallace

18.1 Introduction In the environmental and resource management literature and in policy circles, there is an extensive literature on the use of voluntary instruments for environmental management problems versus the use of regulatory instruments (Bizer & Julich 1999, Khanna 2001, Alberini & Segerson 2002, Lyon & Maxwell 2003, Potoski & Prakash 2004). The literature on the use of market-based instruments intersects with that of voluntary instruments. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s Best Fish Guide is one instrument used by civil society in New Zealand to inform consumers and to engage consumer preferences with the aim of allowing environmentally sound consumer choice for fish and for improved environmental outcomes. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, known usually as Forest and Bird, is New Zealand’s largest grassroots broad membership conservation society with 40 000 members and 55 branches in New Zealand. It was established in 1923. It now has an active interest in all aspects of conservation including marine management and conservation. It is somewhat akin to the Audubon Society in the US. Most of Forest and Bird’s energy, activity and funding come from the membership and their fundraising, though there is a modest number of advocacy, research and administrative staff in the Wellington Central Office and in four regional offices. The New Zealand Best Fish Guide was produced in response to the failure of two market-based instruments, the New Zealand fisheries Quota Management System (QMS) and the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) fish product certification scheme. New Zealand has one of the largest marine areas (Exclusive Economic Zone – EEZ) in the world. Based on fishing effort data reported to the Ministry of Fisheries, over 2000 local and chartered overseas commercial fishing vessels catch over 600 000 tonnes of fish annually in New Zealand waters. They do this by setting 10 000 km of nets and over 50 million hooks and making over 100 000 trawls and 90 000 dredge tows. Fishing takes place in all depths down to about 1500 m and some pelagic longlining takes place over deeper waters. New Zealand’s Fisheries QMS was introduced in the mid-1980s with the hope that ownership of quota would provide significant incentives for fish quota owners SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

367

BLBK019-Ward

368

May 24, 2008

18:0

Seafood Ecolabelling

to protect fish stocks and to increase economic efficiency. The quota system has operated for 20 years in New Zealand’s most commercially significant and biologically large fish stocks in inshore, mid-water and deep-water fisheries. The QMS establishes individual tradable quota (ITQ) within an overall quota or total allowable commercial catch (TACC), a portion of the total allowable catch (TAC). Sustainability measures of the catch limits (‘output controls’) are augmented by ‘input controls’ in the form of a variety of measures that are supposed to ensure sustainability. In practice there has been both regulatory and market failures in New Zealand fisheries management, and the environmental promise of the QMS as a market-based instrument has not been fulfilled. Fish stocks have been allowed to drop to very low levels (Wallace & Weeber 2005). Stocks of orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus), hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae), oreos (Allocyttus niger, Pseudocyttus maculatus), rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii), paua (Haliotis iris), and hake (Merluccius australis) have experienced major stock declines. This has been brought about by discount rates exceeding the net rate of growth of the value of the fish stock in the sea and by government officials and ministers who failed to enforce effective limits on fishing (Wallace & Weeber 2005). When the UK-based MSC came onto the scene, the prospects for a marketsignalling instrument driven by informed consumer preferences seemed strong. The MSC certification seemed an ideal vehicle for surmounting the information asymmetry between fishing companies and consumers. The prospect of the ‘tick’ provided by the MSC process, in which local stakeholders including fishing companies, government officials, scientists and environmental NGOs could have input, seemed ideal. The New Zealand experience of the certification by MSC of the hoki fisheries on the authority of an assessment team assembled by the certification company SGS Product & Process Certification from the Netherlands revealed fatal flaws in the MSC process. Forest and Bird participated along with the Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ (ECO-NZ) and other stakeholders in the MSC processes for the assessment of the hoki fisheries in late 2000. Both organisations opposed the certification of the hoki fisheries on the grounds of declining stocks and inadequate management responses, severe information gaps and the impacts of trawling on marine mammals, seabirds and the host environment including invertebrates and non-target fish. The MSC assessors, SGS, acknowledged the problems in the fishery but declared those matters for ‘minor corrective actions’, and certified the hoki fisheries. The Forest and Bird objection was followed up with an appeal in April 2001. The ECO-NZ, a peak body with over 70 member organisations, associated itself with the appeal. The bases for the appeal were failures in MSC processes and procedures, errors of facts and information, the declining state of the hoki fishery and adverse impacts of fishing. Specifically, the appeal was based on the failure of the MSC assessment to adequately address the impact of the hoki fishery on NZ fur

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:0

The New Zealand Best Fish Guide

369

seals and seabirds (albatross and petrels) on other non-target species including ling (Genypterus blacodes), hake (Merluccius australis) and silver warehou (Seriolella punctata), and on benthic invertebrates in areas of bottom trawling. Forest and Bird was also concerned at the failure of the fishing industry to implement corrective measures in the fishery despite such measures being requested since 2001 by the MSC certifier, SGS. An MSC-appointed panel considered the appeal by Forest and Bird against the certification in 2002. The panel stated: ‘As is apparent from its conclusions and recommendations which follow, the panel has identified several aspects of the SGS assessment concerning Principle 2 which would have justified a refusal of certification as at the date of the assessment.’ (MSC Independent Panel 2002). Despite this the panel confirmed the certificate conditional on a corrective action plan and additional requirements. In the face of its concern at fisheries management failures and its dissatisfaction with the MSC process, decisions and the outcome of the appeal, Forest and Bird decided that it would issue its own assessment of the New Zealand fisheries. There was demand by Forest and Bird members and the general public for information on the impacts of different New Zealand commercial fisheries. Consumers wanted to know which commercial fisheries have the least environmental impacts and which fish to select or avoid. The Society wanted consumers, in New Zealand and elsewhere, to have easily accessible information that was not the subject of pressure from commercial interests or in other ways subject to pressure from those who stood to gain from certification. In 2006 hoki’s 5-year term of certification ended. The hoki fishery was reassessed by SGS as meeting the MSC criteria and this decision has been appealed by Forest and Bird and the World Wide Fund for Nature (New Zealand). The decision of the MSC Appeal Tribunal was released in September 2007. The final decision of the Panel was to allow the decision of the certifiers to continue the certification to stand. The Panel noted that the overall passing score was ‘by the skin of its teeth’ and the ‘Panel sees some validity to the objectors’ position that this is not a fishery that should be certified as sustainable’.

18.2 Description of the programme The Best Fish Guide was launched in New Zealand in May 2004 after two years of research and investigation (Weeber 2004, Weeber & Szabo 2004). It was based largely on official government information. Two reports were released:

r Part one which profiled each of the species assessed and ranked (Weeber & Szabo 2004); and

r Part two which set out the criteria used and provided a range of background information on the effects of New Zealand fisheries (Weeber 2004).

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

370

18:0

Seafood Ecolabelling

Both reports were revised and updated at the end of 2005 (Weeber 2005, Weeber & Szabo 2005). It is the intention of Forest and Bird to continue to update the guide on a regular basis. A simple consumer wallet card guide (Plate 18.1) was produced which listed, classified and ordered each species. Species were placed in one of three broad categories: rankings of green (best choice), amber (caution) and red (avoid). Within each category, the fisheries included were ranked in order of best to worst. All of the reports and information were also put on the Forest and Bird website (http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/bestfishguide/index.asp). The wallet card gives simply the conclusions of the analysis but any interested party has access to the methodology and to the facts behind the assessments. The wallet card carries the Forest and Bird website address to enable interested consumers to delve deeper. The Best Fish Guide assessed 62 different fish species (68 in 2005) commercially caught in New Zealand. Most, but not all, of the species are managed by the fisheries QMS. In both years, all the fish species assessed scored an amber or red ranking. No species earned the green category. Five of the six species added in 2006 were highly migratory species caught by New Zealand fishers. As the focus was on general consumers, it was decided early on that the programme would only cover New Zealand commercial wild-caught fish. The criteria assess fisheries based on major methods, impacts and management. The Best Fish Guide does not assess marine farming products, most freshwater species (eels are assessed), or non-commercial or customary Maorifisheries. Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand and a major settlement of their commercial treaty interests in fisheries occurred in 1992. This settlement separated the customary (non-commercial) element of fishing from their commercial fishing interests. The guide also does not assess fish or seafood imported from other countries, such as tinned and frozen fish, and does not assess regional variations in fisheries.

18.3 Information sources, procedures and methodologies Forest and Bird chose the criteria for the Best Fish Guide after reviewing other marine certification systems and guides described in the literature, such as those applied by Bathgate (1999) and Clarke (2002). In general, Bathgate’s criteria were amended to New Zealand conditions and augmented with two other criteria. The choice of criteria went through two rounds of expert peer review and further revisions were made in 2005 after additional feedback. The final criteria assessed commercial species based on six issues:

r status and sustainability of fish species catches; r impacts of fishing methods used (including level of bycatch and impact on habitat);

r biology and the risk of overfishing;

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:0

The New Zealand Best Fish Guide

371

r effectiveness of management and research (including input and output controls, management plans, and stock assessment information);

r bycatch of protected species or threatened species (such as seabirds, marine mammals and other species covered by schedule 5A of the Wildlife Act 1954 and threatened species ranked by IUCN or the New Zealand Department of Conservation); and r effectiveness of the management unit (including whether more than one species or stock are managed together). These criteria were selected because they provide a ‘whole of ecosystem’ basis on which to rank the overall ecological sustainability of each fish stock, and there is enough information available to assess a fishery against each criterion. The last two criteria are additions to Bathgate’s approach. These were added to better reflect the impacts of fishing on protected species such as marine mammals, seabirds and turtles, or globally threatened species, and to better assess the risks associated with multi-species or multi-stock management. Seabirds, turtles and marine mammals are protected under New Zealand’s Wildlife Act 1953 and the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. Also protected under the Wildlife Act (Schedule 7A) are spotted black grouper (Epinephelus daemelii), black coral (all species in the order Antipatharia) and red coral (all species). The 2005 revision of the Guide added additional criteria to the management effectiveness issue for highly migratory species which are also managed under international conventions. The scoring system, whilst based on the best information available, was necessarily partly subjective and qualitative rather than wholly quantitative. Further, the health and status of each fish stock vary over time, so the ‘snap shot’ of a single assessment cannot fully capture trends. Future versions of the Best Fish Guide may also report on trends. Criteria were established that allowed stocks to be ranked on each variable. The criteria were weighted and the weighted scores summed. Each fishery was scored on the basis of the extent to which it meets the criteria. The scoring against each criterion used a five-step rating from A to E (1–5).

18.3.1 Information sources The guide used the best available information on the state of fisheries and the impacts of fishing on the aquatic environment. The main sources of information were publicly available reports from the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation (DoC) and their contractors including the NZ National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA), and published scientific papers.

18.3.2 Precautionary management In assessing fisheries in New Zealand, Forest and Bird applied a precautionary approach. The precautionary approach has been very widely recognised in fisheries

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

372

18:0

Seafood Ecolabelling

management internationally (FAO 1995a, b, UN Fish Stocks Agreement 1996). Where information about the state of a stock or biological information was uncertain or unknown, the fishery was down-weighted in each assessment category. In each criterion against which a fishery was ranked, a category was included where there was either inadequate information or none. This was usually rated as a D or E.

18.3.3 Criteria Status and sustainability of fish species catches This criterion assessed the status and sustainable yield of a fishery. In New Zealand, fish stocks may be assessed annually by the Ministry of Fisheries’ stock assessment working groups (Annala et al. 2002, 2003, 2004, Sullivan 2003, Sullivan et al. 2005) but fewer than 10% of species covered by the QMS have quantitative stock assessments. Fisheries were rated for the guide in accordance with the best and most recent information available compared to the requirements of the Fisheries Act 1996. In particular, these aspects were taken into account.

Total allowable catch The Minister shall set a total allowable catch that (a) Maintains the stock at or above a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, having regard to the interdependence of stocks; or .... (c) Enables the level of any stock whose current level is above that which can produce the maximum sustainable yield to be altered in a way and at a rate that will result in the stock moving towards or above a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, having regard to the interdependence of stocks.

The New Zealand 1996 Fisheries Act Purpose and Principles (sections 8 and 9) require consideration of the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of fishing; to maintain biodiversity; and to protect habitat of significance to fisheries management. The NIWA (1997) definition of ‘risky’ catch limits defined ‘risky’ as the absence of a maximum constant yield (MCY) estimate or when the current TACC is at least twice the MCY (see Table 18.1). It excluded fish stocks for which there are current annual yield (CAY) estimates which are calculated from quantitative stock assessments. The NIWA approach was used to assess the status of individual species comparing stock size and catch limits to estimated sustainable yields (see Table 18.2).

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:0

The New Zealand Best Fish Guide Table 18.1

373

Definitions used in New Zealand fisheries management.

MCY – maximum constant yield is the maximum constant catch that is sustainable with an ‘acceptable level of risk’ at probable levels of future biomass for a fish stock. CAY – current annual yield is the estimate of the maximum sustainable catch for the current year in reference to a level of fishing mortality which has an ‘acceptable level of risk’. MAY – maximum average yield – which is the long-term CAY and equivalent to MSY. Bo

– the unfished, initial or virgin recruited biomass for a stock.

BMSY – the recruited biomass that supports the maximum sustainable yield. BMAY – the recruited biomass that will support the maximum average yield. BMCY – the recruited biomass that supports the MCY. MSY – maximum sustainable yield, in relation to any stock, means the greatest yield that can be achieved over time while maintaining the stock’s productive capacity, with regard to the population dynamics of the stock and any environmental factors that influence the stock (section 2, Fisheries Act 1996).

Impacts of fishing method The direct effects of fishing techniques considered included the impact on:

r non-target species, including bycatch of fish, invertebrates (such as corals and sponges) (e.g. Cryer et al. 2002); and

r habitat – fishing gear can damage and remove seabed (benthic) plants and animals such as sensitive sponges, corals, bryozoans (lace corals) and shellfish, which are important settlement surfaces, cover and habitat for other organisms (e.g. Cranfield et al. 1999, 2001). Active fishing methods such as dredging and trawling generally have a greater impact on the seafloor than passive techniques such as longlining and gillnetting. The degree of impact caused by various techniques varies with depth, type of seafloor, weight and type of gear used (Collie et al. 2000). The scale of impact can be substantial. For example, a single trawler making three trawl tows of 6 h each, using bottom trawl gear with 100 m between the doors, at an average of three knots, would trawl the bottom over an area of about 10 km2 in one day (Cryer et al. 2002). Each species reviewed in the Forest and Bird assessment may be caught by a number of fishing methods, but for each species there is usually a dominant technique. For instance, hoki is caught mainly by trawling. The fishing techniques scored for each species in the assessment is the most common fishing methods used to commercially catch the species in New Zealand. If there was a range of methods used, the fishery was assessed on the basis of the method with the most significant impact. Forest and Bird reviewed the results of Morgan and Chuenpagdee’s study (2003) to determine whether there were effects that were different in the New Zealand fisheries and considered the comparative impacts of different methods. Forest and

BLBK019-Ward

374

May 24, 2008

Seafood Ecolabelling

Table 18.2 Score

18:0

Score for fish stock status and sustainable yield. Status

Stock status

A

Catches well below MSY and stock well above BMSY

A fish stock has potential in the short term to sustain catches higher than those currently taken and there is an agreed pathway to reduced catches to the MSY, CAY and MCY level

B

Catch limit < MCY

Catches or catch limit less than the estimated MCY based on average catches over a set period (cYav).

B

Catches at or below MSY and stock above BMSY

A fish stock is above BMSY but catches are up to the MSY level based on the official stock assessment estimate of CAY or MCY

C

Catch limit or catches > MCY but < 2× MCY

Catches or catch limit exceeds the estimated MCY based on average catches over a set period (cYav) but are less than twice the estimated MCY

C

Catch exceeds MSY, CAY or MCY but stock is above BMSY

Catch limit or catches exceed MSY but the stock is still above the BMSY level, for example, above BMAY or BMCY , whichever is higher

D

Catch limit or catches greater than twice MCY

Catches or catch limit exceeds twice the estimated MCY based on average catches over a set period (cYav)

D

Stock below BMSY but above 20% Bo

The stock has been overfished and reduced below the size that would support the MSY based on BMAY or BMCY

D

Uncertain/unknown yield or stock size

Status and sustainability are unknown due to a lack of adequate monitoring data or research. There are no estimates of yield, i.e. MCY, CAY or risk-based yields or forward projections. Fisheries operating under such uncertainty are not adopting a precautionary approach and cannot be shown to be sustainable

E

Stock below 20% Bo

Fishery is overfished and catches need to be substantially reduced to allow the stock to recover

E

Stock below BMSY and subject to other factors

Fishery is overfished and likely below the size that would support the MSY and is subject to either recent low recruitment which would prevent recovery to BMSY within 10 years, serial depletion or recent serious disease events, e.g. dredge oysters

Note: MSY in this context includes MCY or CAY.

Bird also looked at additional methods that were not assessed in the US study, such as collecting and diving, jigging, trolling, hook and line, fyke nets, and beach seining. On review, an additional criterion to that applied by Morgan and Chuenpagdee (2003) was added, based on the bycatch of sponges, coral, bryozoans and other invertebrates to better reflect the full range of species caught as bycatch. In most cases the rankings were similar to those in the US study. A noticeable change was the ranking for mid-water trawls which was revised to reflect the impact on globally threatened NZ sea lions, seals and dolphins, and that a proportion of mid-water trawls scrape the bottom (about 50% in the hoki fishery). Purse seining

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:0

The New Zealand Best Fish Guide

375

was also revised to reflect that in the New Zealand zone, this method is not known to capture dolphins and other marine mammals. Scores vary according to the overall impact, the amount of bycatch (non-target catch which is either utilised or discarded) and effect on habitat, ranging from minimal impact to substantial damage (see Table 18.3). For example, pelagic longlining for tuna and snapper causes negligible damage to the seafloor but still receives a low score because the technique kills large numbers of seabirds and other bycatch (including sharks), which are generally discarded. Biology and risk of overfishing The life span, age at sexual maturity, fecundity (number of eggs or young produced), productivity and level of natural mortality are all factors that determine the susceptibility of a species to the effects of fishing, including how quickly it will recover from overfishing. In addition, the geographic distribution, degree of endemism (whether it is restricted to one area or widely distributed), behaviour and social structure of a species (whether it is solitary, territorial, highly migratory or site specific) also contribute to how a species responds to commercial exploitation. Fish species may be classified according to any of the criteria with an intrinsic rate of increase being the key factor (Musick et al. 2001). The species was assessed according to the lowest productivity parameter in Table 18.4 for which data are available. For example, a species with high fecundity (>104 ), but late maturity (5–10 years) and long life span (>30 years), would be classified under the very low productivity category. In addition to the categories developed by Musick and others for the American Fisheries Society (Musick et al. 2000, 2001), a new category for species with very high resilience has been added to give a five-point risk rating for each species and to make the range for scores for these criteria consistent with other criteria (Table 18.4). In addition to the productivity risk to a stock, there are a number of other factors to consider:

r r r r r

rarity; small range and whether the species is endemic to New Zealand; specialised habitat requirements such as kelp forests; population decline, including size and speed of decline; and loss of habitat, especially on species with a small range and specialised habitat requirements.

The biology of each species is scored from A to E – from most resilient to fishing, to least resilient based on lifespan, natural mortality, time to maturity, reproductive output and productivity.

BLBK019-Ward

376

May 24, 2008

Seafood Ecolabelling

Table 18.3 Score

18:0

Examples of assessments of fishing methods. Technique

Environmental effects of technique

A

Collecting and diving: e.g. abalone (paua) (Haliotis iris)

Bycatch and wastage: Collecting (usually from the intertidal zone) and diving can be highly selective but not if coastal stripping takes place Habitat damage: Low habitat impact. Collection and trampling in the intertidal zone may impact on intertidal communities but this is negligible compared to recreational catches which can strip areas of fish and shellfish

A

Jigging (squid): e.g. squid (Nototodarus gouldi)

Bycatch and wastage: Jigging is highly selective and takes minimal bycatch. Discarded lines and lost jigs may have an impact on other sea life Habitat damage: Low habitat impact

B

Trapping and potting Potting – lobster (Jasus edwardsii) Trapping – blue cod (Parapercis colias)

Bycatch and wastage: Fish traps and lobster pots are selective, with some bycatch of other fish species and octopus. Seals and shags can sometimes be trapped and drown in rock lobster pots and seals and whales and dolphins can get entangled in pot lines Habitat damage: Minimal habitat damage, unless placed on fragile corals or other reef species

B

Trolling: e.g. albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga)

Bycatch and wastage: Trolling is a relatively selective method of catching tuna with few other species being caught. Fur seals and seabirds are occasionally hooked on trolls Habitat damage: Minimal habitat damage

B

Purse seining: e.g. kahawai (Arripis trutta) and blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus)

Bycatch and wastage: Purse seining usually targets single species schools, and tends to be relatively selective Habitat damage: Negligible impact on the seafloor

C–D

Danish seining: e.g. snapper (Pagrus auratus)

Bycatch and wastage: A seining method using a large net but the catch hauled on deck. The catch is more likely to be crushed and survival of discarded catch is lower than beach seining Habitat damage: Danish seine nets contact seafloor. While mostly carried out on sandy and low profile seafloor, it can impact on sensitive and vulnerable seabed habitat

D

Longlining: Pelagic – tuna, snapper Bottom set – ling and bluenose (Hyperoglyphe antarctica) Droplines – bluenose

Bycatch and wastage: Longlining for tuna results in significant mortality of albatrosses and petrels as well as billfish and sharks. Inshore longlines (e.g. for snapper) also catch and kill petrels Habitat damage: It has minimal impact on habitat but lost lines can entangle and kill protected marine wildlife. Longlining uses a large amount of bait, potentially affecting these species and raising biosecurity issues over the sea into which the bait is released

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:0

The New Zealand Best Fish Guide Table 18.3 Score

377

(continued) Technique

Environmental effects of technique

D

Gillnetting (including set netting): e.g. rig shark (Mustelus lenticulatus), elephant fish (Callorhinchus milii)

Bycatch and wastage: Gillnetting (including set netting) has the potential to take large amounts of bycatch including dolphins, seals, sharks, seabirds and reef fish. Longer soaking periods lower the chance of unwanted fish being released alive Habitat damage: Minimal impact on the seafloor

D

Middle-depth trawling: e.g. hoki, squid, and southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis)

Bycatch and wastage: Can take substantial tonnage of bycatch. Trawling catches fur seals, sea lions and dolphins Habitat damage: If the seabed is not touched then impact is minimal, however pelagic trawls often touch the bottom and therefore have similar impacts to bottom trawling

E

Bottom trawling and dredging, including pair trawling Trawling: e.g. orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) Dredging: e.g. oysters (Tiostrea chilensis), scallops (Pecten novaezelandiae)

Bycatch and wastage: Trawling and dredging can take large quantities of bycatch including fish and invertebrate species, e.g. sponges, corals, etc. Bycatch in some trawling and dredging can be up to 10 times the target species. Trawling also catches fur seals, sea lions and dolphins Habitat damage: Gear dragged along the seafloor may cause major habitat damage, increases turbidity and alters substrate topography. Dredging is particularly damaging to benthic species

Effectiveness of management and research Essential fishery information to manage a stock includes:

r fish life-history and habitat requirements, for example, maximum age, natural mortality, age at reproductive maturity (Paul 1992);

r the status and trends of fish populations, fishing effort and catch levels; r fishery effects on fish age structure and other marine living resources; and r climate variability effects on larval and juvenile survival and growth. Table 18.4

Population resilience and productivity parameters. Productivity parameter

Population resilience

Intrinsic rate of increase (r)/year

von Bertalanffy k

Fecundity per year

Age at maturity (Tmat)

Maximum age (Tmax)

Natural mortality (M)

Risk rating

Very high High Medium Low Very low

>1 1–0.51 0.16–0.50 0.05–0.15 < 0.05

> 0.60 0.31–0.60 0.16–0.30 0.05–0.15 < 0.05

> 105 104 –105 102 –103 10–102 < 10

10

30

> 0.4 0.2–0.4 0.1–0.2 0.05–0.1 < 0.05

A B C D E

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

378

18:0

Seafood Ecolabelling

The following management and research factors were considered important elements of an ecologically sustainable management and research system, and as standards for assessment of the management of a species:

r annual quantitative stock assessments and setting catch limits on the basis of best assessments and use of precautionary principle;

r biological reference points or trigger points or bottom-line standards identified (i.e. indicators against which the status of a stock can be judged);

r formal management plans and strategies based on the knowledge of species and stocks;

r sound basic biological knowledge of the species, including natural mortality, age at recruitment, age at maturity and maximum age; and

r adequacy of recent research, including independent at-sea observation and monitoring, and the use of fishery-independent methods (e.g. random trawl surveys, tagging or acoustic methods). Stocks were rated (A to E) on the basis of the five management and research factors set out above. Bycatch of protected species or threatened species All marine mammals and seabirds, and three other marine species are protected under the New Zealand Wildlife Act 1954 and the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. The IUCN – World Conservation Union and the DoC list New Zealand threatened species (BirdLife International 2000, 2004, IUCN 2001, Hitchmough 2002). The marine species assessed in this criterion are predominantly marine mammals and seabirds, but there has been a move since 1997 in New Zealand to determine the threat status of other marine species including certain sharks and corals. For example, basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) is listed in both the Convention on Migratory Species and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species, and is caught in a range of trawl fisheries including the squid and hoki fisheries. The scores A to E were set to indicate the risk posed by fishing to species globally threatened with extinction or the level of protected species bycatch (Table 18.5). No distinction was made between the IUCN categories ‘near-threatened” and ‘least concern’. Effectiveness of management unit Under both quota and non-quota management, several species may be managed as a single-quota group. For example, three oreo species are managed as one unit despite different biological characteristics and depth ranges. Eight flatfish species are managed as one unit. Most flatfish are fast growing and short lived (3–6 years). Recent studies have shown that brill (Colistum guntheri) and turbot (C. nudipinnis)

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:0

The New Zealand Best Fish Guide Table 18.5

379

Scores for protected species or threatened species bycatch.

Score

Note

A

Fishery catches no protected species or threatened species bycatch

B

Fishery catches less than 10 per annum of non-threatened protected species

C

Fishery catches less than 20 per annum of non-threatened protected species or catches non-threatened species

D

Fishery catches vulnerable or near-threatened species or catches large numbers of protected species over 20 per annum

E

Fishery catches endangered or critically endangered species

E

Fishery catches more than 100 threatened or protected species annually

(now managed within the same quota management unit) live longer, reaching a maximum age of 21 years and 16 years, respectively (Stevens et al. 2001). An additional risk can be the management of several stocks of the same species as one quota or fisheries management area. Separate stocks are considered to be separate breeding populations. Managing several stocks together can lead to one stock, particularly the smaller stock, being over-exploited. For example, the two hoki stocks in New Zealand are managed as one quota unit and one TACC. For some species there is an added risk of serial depletion if the stock unit is a small geographical unit as in the case of cockles (Austrovenus stutchburyi) and paua (abalone) (Haliotis iris) (McShane & Naylor 1995). The quota management species have usually had catch limits established for large areas that do not take into account the potential for serial depletion of discrete sub-units (based on spawning populations). Quota management areas (usually 10) are often inappropriate for stock assessment purposes. In 2005 this criterion was modified to take into account the management of straddling stocks and highly migratory species. This includes whether there is a convention or agreement for this species and whether it is taking effective action, and whether there is significant illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) activity. Risks posed by managing multiple species as one unit or not dividing stocks into different management areas were scored from A to E.

18.3.4 Weighting The criteria were not considered equal in their contribution to the overall ecological sustainability of a fish stock and the impact of the fishery on the associated ecosystems, so weighting was applied (see Table 18.6). Overall, fish stock status and sustainable yield were considered to be the best indicator of ecological sustainability, followed by fishing method, biology, integrity of management unit, and overall management and research. Protected species or globally threatened species bycatch were given a similar rating to ‘status and sustainable yield’ because these

BLBK019-Ward

380

May 24, 2008

18:0

Seafood Ecolabelling Table 18.6

Weighting of criteria.

Weighting constant 1× 2× 2× 2× 3× 3×

Criteria Management and research Fishing methods Biology and risk of overfishing Management unit Status and sustainable yield Protected species or globally threatened species bycatch

give a strong indicator of ecosystem health and the impact of a fishery on key species. The overall score of a fishery is the sum of the scores against each criterion multiplied by its weighting constant.

18.3.5 Individual fish species The Best Fish Guide assessed 62 commercially caught species (68 in 2005) in New Zealand (Weeber & Szabo 2004, 2005). For each species included in the guide (e.g. see Box 18.1) the following information was provided:

r r r r r r r

names, including indigenous Maori name; description of the fish species; main concerns; summary of results from the most recent Ministry of Fisheries stock assessment; market values and export information; status and sustainable yield from stocks including catch limits and actual catches; fishing methods used and impacts of methods on habitats, bycatch and ecological effects. r management regime including whether it is covered by the QMS; r biology of species including distribution, maximum age, age at maturity, growth and age exploited; and r key references. Box 18.1

Best Fish Guide Description of Hoki

Fishery: Hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae) Other names: Whiptail, blue hake, blue grenadier (NZ); Langschwanz-Seehecht (Germany); Merluse (France); Merluza azul (Spain); Nasello azzurro (Italy). Ranking: E (red – avoid) Description: Hoki is a relative of cod and trawling occurs year round. It is currently New Zealand’s largest fishery and has the greatest impact of any fishery. The main concerns with this fishery are: the bycatch of hundreds of NZ fur seals, albatrosses and petrels each year, the management of two stocks as one quota

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:0

The New Zealand Best Fish Guide

381

management area, the declining state of the Western stock fishery, the lack of a management plan and the need for the annual quota to be reduced to 100 000 tonnes in 2004. The fishery assessment plenary report states: ‘For the western stock, median estimates of current biomass were 18 to 22% Bo. [Recent] poor recruitment from 1995 to 2001 but there is some evidence of improvement in the last 2 years. For the Eastern stock, current biomass was estimated to be 35 and 42% Bo’ (Sullivan et al. 2005, p. 293). Market: Most hoki is exported to the US, Europe – including the UK and Belgium – Japan and Australia. Hoki exports were worth $174 million in 2005, down from $346 million in 2001. The Fillet’o’Fish sold at McDonalds in New Zealand is hoki. Status and sustainable yield (ranking: E) Status: Overfished. Annual catch limit: Since 2001–2002 it has been reduced from 250 000 tonnes to 100 000 tonnes for the 2004–2005 fishing year. Recorded catch: Estimated catch of 132 000 tonnes in 2003–04. Population size: New Zealand’s largest fishery with a declining stock size compounded by weak recruitment of juvenile fish to the adult population since the mid-1990s, particularly West Coast. Stock trends: Declining. Fishing method (rank: D; Protected species bycatch: E) Method: Bottom trawling targets non-spawning aggregations (Chatham Rise and Sub-Antarctic Plateau) and mid-water trawling targets spawning aggregations on West Coast and Cook Strait. Bycatch: Hundreds of NZ fur seals, albatrosses and petrels are drowned in the hoki fishery each year. The affected albatrosses and petrels include several globally threatened species such as black-browed and Buller’s albatross and whitechinned petrel. Non-target fish species bycatch is also a problem with hake, ling and silver warehou being caught in West Coast hoki fisheries. Other bycatch species are deepwater sharks including shovelnose dogfish, seal shark and Baxter’s dogfish. Threatened basking sharks are also caught. Habitat damage: Bottom trawling bulldozes the sea floor, destroying soft corals, sponges and long-lived bryozoans. The expanding use of double-linked nets with a large heavy roller in between has increased the impact of this fishery on fragile deepwater habitats. Ecological effects: The dumping of offal and other fish waste during processing at sea has an ecological effect together with the impact of bottom trawling. Management (ranking: B; management unit: C)

BLBK019-Ward

382

May 24, 2008

18:0

Seafood Ecolabelling

Stock assessment: Quantitative stock assessment for East and West stocks in 2005 Management plan: No Quota Management Species: Yes, since 1986 Biology (ranking: C) Distribution: The main areas where hoki are caught are off the West Coast of the South Island, the Cook Strait and Chatham Rise to the east of the South Island, and Sub-Antarctic waters at depths of 400–800 m. Maximum age (years): 20–25. Age at sexual maturity: 4. Growth rate: Relatively fast. Reproductive output: Medium to high. Age exploited: 2. References: Seafood magazine 2004; Sullivan et al. 2005; NZ Fishing Industry Board 1990; MFish Starfish web pages: www.starfish.govt.nz, 2004; SeaFIC website: www.seafood.co.nz, 2004.

18.4 Expectations for outcomes The Best Fish Guide was designed to provide a vehicle for addressing and influencing people as consumers and as citizens. The immediate function of the guide is clearly to provide information to consumers who do not have the information or resources to inform themselves in their purchasing decisions. The intermediate outcome sought is to lessen the information asymmetry between fishing companies and their ultimate consumers and to educate intermediaries such as supermarket stockists, restaurants and hoteliers. The ultimate goal is to reduce the demand for the fish stocks that are under the greatest stress, to reduce pressure on their host environment, including seabirds and marine mammals, to allow fish stock recovery and to pave the way for more environmental protection. To emphasise that Forest and Bird was not against people eating fish, when the Best Fish Guide was launched it was accompanied by media using well-known New Zealand chefs who provided recipes for the top 12 fish in the amber categories, in order to help people to shift to fish from less damaging fisheries (Daish 2004). The recipes were placed on the Forest and Bird website (http://www.forestandbird. org.nz/bestfishguide/recipe/index.asp). The campaign and dialogue focusing around the launch and distribution of the guide was designed to influence people to become aware of the impacts of different fishing methods, the ecological effects of fishing, the status of fish stocks and to carry this awareness into the realm of citizens who will demand change. Such

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:0

The New Zealand Best Fish Guide

383

demands may translate into pressure on politicians and more support for Forest and Bird’s efforts to pressure for environmentally better fisheries management and for marine reserves, as part of the system of providing a cushion for the marine ecosystem against the impacts of fishing.

18.5 Influencing consumer choices Forest and Bird was aware of market research that suggested that people would engage on the issue of fisheries impacts first as consumers. The engagement with people on fisheries management policy is more difficult. An obvious problem for Forest and Bird is the fact that 85% of product from New Zealand fisheries is exported. Strategies for engaging consumer choices are thus divided between those aimed at altering domestic consumers’ choices and those aimed at the consumers outside New Zealand. In the latter case, the task is longer term. International partners were, and are, continuing to be sought to help educate and pressure supermarket buyers, restaurants and hoteliers, and those in the food media. BirdLife International is one such partner who have placed the Forest and Bird material on their website. Forest and Bird has also sought the help of international opinion leaders such as Sylvia Earle and others in raising the issues with consumers abroad. In the dynamic of the politics of fisheries management in New Zealand, this reaching out to consumer and public opinion abroad is crucial, since such customer sentiment means far more to the fishing industry in New Zealand than domestic environmental opinion does. ‘Reach’ and influence in foreign markets are important. Domestically in New Zealand, where 15% of the fish is consumed, Forest and Bird sought to place the wallet card (Plate 18.1) in the hands of a proportion of consumers who will use it and who will then spread the word. This also enabled an opportunity to talk to chefs, food media representatives, regular media, supermarket buyers and hoteliers so that they would be informed and then help to mould consumer preferences. While many of the species that ended up high in the amber category were less well known, they were also species that tended to be cheaper than species in the red (avoid) category. This point was emphasised by the number of chefs (Daish 2004).

18.6 Programme marketing New Zealand environmental organisations lack the resources of many of the larger overseas groups and there is little in the way of foundation funding as is found, for example, in the US. Programme marketing has therefore not had the benefit of

BLBK019-Ward

384

May 24, 2008

18:0

Seafood Ecolabelling

professional marketers or mass media advertising. Programme marketing has been a combination of the methods of harnessing opinion leaders as described above, using their profiles to get coverage, and ‘grassroots’ contact with consumers and Forest and Bird members. The guide development and promotion were funded by Forest and Bird, except that reprints requested by some organisations were funded by those groups. The government has not provided any funding or other support. The launch of the ‘Blue Zealand’ campaign, in the political heart of the New Zealand capital Wellington, was followed by 24 public meetings organised in 2004 by Forest and Bird branches throughout New Zealand to promote the campaign and create public awareness. Around 100 000 copies of the Best Fish Guide wallet card were produced. There was a mail-out for Forest and Bird members and Greenpeace New Zealand members. The guide was circulated to like-minded organisations internationally. Local media were given the opportunity to cover the issues and a range of other events were used to promote public awareness. Some recreational fishing groups promoted the programme to their members. The New Zealand fishing industry has been either hostile or has maintained a studied silence.

18.7 Effectiveness in the marketplace The programme has been underway for less than 3 years at the time of writing, so information on effectiveness in the marketplace is not available. Methods for assessing success in the market place would range from sophisticated multivariate analyses beyond the capacity of the Forest and Bird to focus groups and other survey methods to examine public awareness, surveys of food industry professionals’ awareness and market purchase monitoring. Determining the effectiveness of the guide is also complicated by effects of the diminishing supply of some species, such as orange roughy or hoki. The launch of the programme was followed up with further public awareness activity including commentary on the closures of fish factories as fish stocks and catch limits were reduced. General media activity was undertaken to prompt and remind consumers and citizens of the issues. The success measures to determine the effectiveness of the guide would include respondent awareness in focus groups before and after exposure to the information, follow-up surveys, purchase pattern shifts assessed by random sample surveys of purchasing behaviour, restaurant menu analysis, product sales that demonstrate changed purchases and change in government decisions. The ultimate test of the success of the programme is the recovery of the fisheries, but this is a situation with many variables. There is essentially a race to reduce demand and to pressure fishing companies to reduce both supply and the impacts of fishing before the attrition of the stocks and the natural environmental capital reaches such a level that demand reduction becomes irrelevant in the face of

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:0

The New Zealand Best Fish Guide

385

collapsed fish stocks. This collapse has already been reached in the case of most of New Zealand’s orange roughy stocks (five stocks are below 20% of the original biomass; fishing on two stocks was only closed when they reached 7% and 3% of the estimated original biomass).

18.8 New directions The Best Fish Guide is a snapshot assessment of New Zealand’s commercial marine fisheries in June 2004 which Forest and Bird intends regularly to review to record long-term trends. New Zealand is in the process of adding new species to the New Zealand QMS and commercialising new species. There is thus a need to extend the range of species covered and to continue to update the guide in relation to individual stocks as they change. The reach of the consumer and citizen information programme needs to be extended to markets beyond the shores of New Zealand. For this new partnerships are needed and academic and practitioner studies of the market and policy impacts of the programme are welcomed. Generalisation of the understanding of the risks to the marine environment and fisheries from particularly destructive methods of fishing such as bottom trawling and day-time longlining is also needed. This should include consideration of recreational and/or cultural significance of fish and fisheries.

18.9 Conclusions The Forest and Bird’s Best Fish Guide is the first guide assessing different fisheries in New Zealand. The development of the guide was a response to the failures of the QMS to maintain fish stocks and environmental protection, and the severe flaws in the MSC’s certification of the hoki fishery. The guide assessed 62 different commercially caught fish species. Most, but not all, of the species are managed by the fisheries QMS. The guide is based on a set of criteria against which the best available information was applied and fisheries scored, weighted, summed and ranked. The criteria used by Forest and Bird are generally applicable to wild-capture fisheries and could be applied in many other countries. The Best Fish Guide programme was designed to inform consumers to allow them to make more environmentally discriminating choices and also to raise the awareness of consumers as citizens in the issues facing the marine environment. A major remaining challenge is how to reach the consumers of the 85% of New Zealand fish that is exported, and how to educate those consumers on their future choices both as consumers and to engage them as part of the civil society not only with respect to the New Zealand fisheries but with respect to fishing impacts and fishing depletion globally.

BLBK019-Ward

386

May 24, 2008

18:0

Seafood Ecolabelling

References Alberini, A. & Segerson, K. (2002) Assessing voluntary programs to improve environmental quality. Environmental and Resource Economics, 22, 157–184. Annala, J.H., Sullivan, K.J., O’Brien, C.J., Smith, N.W.McL. & Varian, S.J.A. (compilers) (2002) Report from the fishery assessment plenary, May 2002: stock assessments and yield estimates, 640 pp. Unpublished report. NZ Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. Annala, J.H., Sullivan, K.J. & O’Brien, C.J. (compilers) (2003) Report from the fishery assessment plenary, May 2003: stock assessments and yield estimates, 495 pp. Unpublished report. NZ Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. Annala, J.H., Sullivan, K.J., Smith, N.W.McL., Griffiths, M.H., Todd, P.R., Mace, P.M. & Connell, A.M. (compilers) (2004) Report from the fishery assessment plenary, May 2004: stock assessments and yield estimates, 690 pp. Unpublished report. NZ Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. Bathgate, R. (1999) The ecological sustainability of marine fisheries. An overview of southeastern Australian fisheries, 136 pp. A report for the Victorian National Parks Association. Victorian National Parks Association, Melbourne, Australia. BirdLife International (2000) Threatened Birds of the World. Lynx Editions and BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain, and Cambridge, UK. Birdlife International (2004) Threatened Birds of the World. CD-ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. Bizer, K. & Julich, R. (1999) Voluntary agreements – trick or treat? European Environment, 9, 59–66. Clarke, B. (2002) Good Fish Guide – The Ultimate Consumer Guide to Eating ‘EcoFriendly’ Fish, 2nd ed. Marine Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye, UK. Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Kaiser, M.J. & Poiner, I.R. (2000) A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology, 69, 785–798. Cranfield, H.J., Carbines, G., Michael, K.P., Dunn, A., Stotter, D.R. & Smith, D.J. (2001) Promising signs of regeneration of blue cod and oyster habitat changed by dredging in Foveaux Strait, southern New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 35, 897–908. Cranfield, H.J., Michael, K.P. & Doonan, I.J. (1999) Case study: changes in the distribution of epifaunal reefs and oysters during 130 years of dredging for oysters in Foveaux Strait, southern New Zealand. Aquatic Conservation Marine Freshwater Ecosystems, 9, 461– 483. Cryer, M., Hartill, B. & O’Shea, S. (2002) Modification of marine benthos by trawling: toward a generalization for the deep ocean? Ecological Applications, 12, 1824–1839. Daish, L. (2004) Here’s the catch. NZ Listener, 20 June 2004. FAO (1995a) Precautionary approach to fisheries. Part I: guidelines on the precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions, 52 pp. Elaborated by the Technical Consultation on the Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries (Including Species Introductions). Lysekil, Sweden, 6–13 June 1995. FAO Technical Paper No. 350, Part I, FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO (1995b) Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. FAO Fisheries Department, Rome, Italy.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:0

The New Zealand Best Fish Guide

387

Hitchmough, R. (compiler) (2002) New Zealand threat classification lists, 210 pp. Department of Conservation Threatened Species Occasional Publication 23. NZ Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List categories and criteria: version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Khanna, M. (2001) Non-mandatory approaches to environmental protection. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(3), 291–324. Lyon, T.P. & Maxwell, J.W. (2003) Self-regulation, taxation and public voluntary environmental agreements. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1453–1486. MSC (2002) New Zealand Hoki fishery – independent panel decision, 6 pp. 16 December 2002. Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK. McShane, P.E. & Naylor, J.R. (1995) Small-scale spatial variation in growth, size at maturity, and yield- and egg-per-recruit relations in the New Zealand abalone Haliotis iris. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 29, 603–612. Morgan, L.E. & Chuenpagdee, R. (2003) Shifting Gears: Addressing the Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in US Waters, 52pp. Pew Science Series, Island Press, Washington, DC. Musick, J.A., Berkeley, S.A., Cailliet, G.M., Camhi, M., Huntsman, G., Nammacky, M. & Warren, M.L. Jr. (2000) Protection of marine fish stocks at risk of extinction. Fisheries, 25(3), 6–8. Musick, J.A., Harbin, M.M., Berkeley, S.A., Burgess, G.H., Eklund, A.M., Findley, L., Gilmore, R.G., Golden, J.T., Ha, D.S., Hunstman, G.R., McGovern, J.C., Parker, S.J., Poss, S.G., Sala, E., Schmidt, T.W., Sedberry, G.R., Weeks, H. & Wright, S.G. (2001) Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish stocks at risk of extinction in North America (exclusive of Pacific salmonids). Fisheries, 25(11), 6–30. NIWA (1997) Submission on the Review of the Government’s Fishing Industry Cost Recovery Regime, Submission to the Primary Production Select Committee, 6/5/97. NIWA, Wellington, New Zealand. NZFishing (1990) Guidebook to New Zealand Commercial Fish Species, Revised edition 1990. NZ Fishing Industry Board, Wellington, New Zealand. Paul, L.J. (1992) Age and growth studies of New Zealand marine fishes, 1921–90: a review and bibliography. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 43, 879–912. Potoski, M. & Prakash, A. (2004) The regulation dilemma: cooperation and conflict in environmental governance. Public Administration Review, 64(2), 152–163. Seafood (2004) European marketing and the MSC. Seafood magazine, May 2004, 12(4), 8. Stevens, D.W., Francis, M.P., Shearer, P.J., McPhee, R.P., Hickman, R.W. & Tait, M. (2001) Age and growth of brill (Colistium guntheri) and turbot (C. nudipinnis) from the west coast South Island, 35 pp. Final research report for Ministry of Fisheries research project FLA2000/01. NZ Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. Sullivan, K.J. (compiler) (2003) Report from the mid-year fishery assessment plenary, November 2003: stock assessments and yield estimates, 48 pp. Unpublished report. NZ Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. Sullivan, K.J., Mace, P.M., O’Brien, C.J., Smith, N.W. McL., Griffiths, M.H., Todd, P.R., Livingston, M.E., Harley, S.J., Key, J.M. & Connell, A.M. (compilers) (2005) Report from the fishery assessment plenary, May 2005: stock assessments and yield estimates, 792 pp. Unpublished report. NZ Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand.

BLBK019-Ward

388

May 24, 2008

18:0

Seafood Ecolabelling

UN Fish Stocks Agreement (1996) Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 42 pp. Wallace, C. & Weeber, B. (2005) The devil and the deep sea – economics, institutions and incentives: the theory and the New Zealand quota management experience in the deep sea. In: R. Shotton (Ed.) Deep Sea 2003: Conference on the Governance and Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries. Part 1: Conference Reports, 718 pp. Queenstown, NZ, 1–5 Dec 2003. FAO Fisheries Proceedings No. 3/1, FAO, Rome, Italy. Weeber, B. (2004) Best Fish Guide Part Two: Criteria for Ecological Rankings of New Zealand Commercial Fisheries, 42 pp. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, June 2004, Wellington, New Zealand. Weeber, B. (2005) Best Fish Guide 05–06 Part Two: Criteria for Ecological Rankings of New Zealand Commercial Fisheries, 46 pp. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, November 2005, Wellington, New Zealand. Weeber, B. & Szabo, M. (2004) Best Fish Guide Part One: Summary of Ecological Rankings for New Zealand Commercial Fisheries, 86pp. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, June 2004. Wellington, New Zealand. Weeber, B. & Szabo, M. (2005) Best Fish Guide 05-06 Part One: Summary of Ecological Rankings for New Zealand Commercial Fisheries, 90 pp. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, November 2005. Wellington, New Zealand.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:58

Chapter 19

Guiding Australian Consumers to Sustainable Seafood Choices Craig Bohm

19.1 Introduction Overfishing in Australia is a fact. In 2005, the Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) reported that the number of fish species overfished had increased from 5 in 1992 to 24 in 2004 (McLoughlin 2006), about one-quarter of all high-value species managed by the Australian Government. However, BRS does not report on the sustainability of species which are managed by State and Territory (regional) governments, and as there is also still limited reporting of bycatch and other ecological interactions of most fisheries, the environmental sustainability of fishing cannot be assessed on a national scale (Ward & Butler 2006). According to Ward and Butler in their analysis provided to the National State of the Environment Report (SOE) 2006 (http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2006/index. html), fishing in Australia is everywhere. Commercial fishing operates in all waters and increasingly in most remote areas and depths, and while the estuaries of tropical Australia are remote, most are heavily fished, some are affected by sediment and agricultural chemical transport from the hinterland, some of their species are threatened, and their associated wetlands are increasingly being altered by changing rainfall regimes and seawater incursions. Further, Ward and Butler report that nationally, a number of Australia’s fish stocks are at alarmingly low levels and that the combined fishing effort of recreational and commercial fisheries puts pressure on fish stocks and on the associated species, habitats and ecosystems. There are also inadequate biomass reference points to determine the condition of the stocks, few reliable data and no fully independent assessment of fish stocks or the fisheries. Increasingly, news about overfishing and poor fishing (and aquaculture) practices is permeating into mainstream consciousness of Australians. Seafood consumers in Australia are hearing this news and are seeking ways to ensure that they are part of the solution and not part of the problem. As a result, many have turned to the Australian Marine Conservation Society for guidance. SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

389

BLBK019-Ward

390

May 24, 2008

18:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

In 2004, Australian Marine Conservation Society responded by developing Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide (the Guide). The 2004 Guide offered Australian seafood consumers an insight into the sustainability of 30 commonly eaten domestic seafood species, and provided a series of fact sheets about the nature of the fishing and aquaculture industries that provide these species. In 2006, the Guide was updated and expanded (and is referred to here as the 2006 Guide), doubling the number of species assessed (from 30 to 60 species) and including an assessment of aquaculture methods and the sustainability of species grown in aquaculture production (Plate 19.1). The seafood fact sheet series was also incorporated into this Guide and additional topics added. Both the 2004 and 2006 Guides were supported by a 3 Step Pocket Guide, a convenient wallet-sized card that lists known overfished species and suggests useful questions consumers could ask at the seafood counter. For the sake of clarity, this chapter primarily focuses on the production of the 2006 Guide.

19.2 Description of the Guide The Guide is a full-colour, 55-page, A6 booklet. It begins with an impassioned Foreword by Tim Winton, prominent Australian author and Australian Marine Conservation Society Patron. The main body of the Guide is divided into four sections – Sections 1–3 presents the ‘Say No’, ‘Think Twice’ or ‘Better Choice’ seafood species where both wild-capture and aquaculture species are presented. Table 19.1 outlines these species and their categorisation used in the Guide. Section 4 of the Guide introduces the reader to a range of related seafood topics. These include:

r r r r r r r r

fishing gear types and their potential impacts; aquaculture types and their potential impacts; seafood and what it means for human health; seafood labelling, its deficiencies and needs; seafood imports and their role in the domestic market place; supermarket seafood and its sources; marine national parks and their role in sustaining seafood populations; understanding the concept of ‘shifting baselines’ and how our perceptions of overfishing have change overtime; and r commonly asked questions that consumers can use when purchasing seafood. The Guide is supplemented by a wallet-sized ‘3 Step Pocket Guide’, which lists ‘overfished’ species and includes the commonly asked questions consumers can use to help ascertain the sustainability of the seafood on offer at the seafood counter. The 3 Step Pocket Guide is available free of charge with each seafood Guide purchase or can be ordered at cost in bulk by educational institutions, conservation groups or other supporting organisations. A small fee is charged for the Guide to

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:58

Guiding Australian Consumers to Sustainable Seafood Choices

391

Table 19.1 Summary of species and their categorisation in Australia’s sustainable seafood guide – c expanded edition (2006) (Australian Marine Conservation Society). Wild caught ‘Say No’ species Blue Warehou (Seriolella brama) Broadbill Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Commercial Scallop (Pecten fumatus) Eastern Gemfish (Rexea solandri) Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) Oreo (Oreosomatidae species) Redfish (Centrberyx affinis) Sharks and Rays – flake Silver Trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex) Southern Blue-fin Tuna (Thunnus maccoyii)

Aquaculture

Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) Mulloway (Argyrosomus hololepidotus) Ocean Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss and Salmo trutta) Snapper (Pagrus auratus) Yellow-tail Kingfish (Seriola lalandi)

‘Think Twice’ species Abalone (Haliotis species) Ponded Prawns Blue-eye Trevalla (Hyperoglyphe antarctica) Pond and tank Barramundi (Lates Blue Grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae) calcarifer) Bugs (Thenus and Ibacus species) Cod and Groper (Serranidae species) Coral Trout (Plectropomus and Variola species) Dory (Zeidae species) Emperors (True Emperors) (Lethrinus species) Giant (King) Crab (Pseudocarcinus gigas) Gold-band Snapper (Pristipomoides species) Lobster (Jasus and Panulirus species) Mackerel (Tribes Scomberomorini and Scombrini) Mud Crab (Scylla species) Pink Ling (Genypterus blacodes) Prawn Red Emperor Scallop (Pectinidae and Amusium species) Snapper (Pagrus auratus) Snapper – Tropical (including Sea Perch) (Lutjanid species) Tailor (Pomatomus saltatrix) Western Australian Dhufish (Glaucosoma hebraicum) Yellow-fin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) ‘Better Choice’ species Australian Salmon (Arripis species) Abalone (Haliotis species) Blue Swimmer Crab (Portunus pelagicus) Blue Mussel (Mytylius edulis) Bream (Sparidae species) Crayfish (Cherax species) Calamari, cuttlefish, octopus, squid Oysters – does not include Pacific Flathead (Platycephalidae species) Oyster King George Whiting (Sillaginodes punctata) Leatherjacket (Monocanthidae species) Mullet (Mugilidae species) Mulloway (Argyrosomus hololepidotus) Trevally (Caranginae species) – tropical species only Western Rock Lobster (Panulirus cygnus) – MSC certified only Whiting (Sillago species) Yellow-tail Kingfish (Seriola lalandi)

BLBK019-Ward

392

May 24, 2008

18:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

cover printing, postage and ongoing development costs (www.marineconservation. org.au/seafood). The 3-step pocket guides can be ordered by educational bodies in bulk free of charge direct from the Australian Marine Conservation Society. The species that appear in the Guide were chosen from amongst Australia’s most popular domestic seafood species. Seafood markets were visited around the country to assess the ‘regionality’ of species, and this influenced the species selection – the most commonly observed species were chosen for review. Both the common and scientific names of species are used in the Guide and these are consistent with those developed by Yearsley et al. (2001) (www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/ pshz.html) and are used by the fishing industry and Standards Australia to develop a standardised list of marketing names for seafood species (www.seafoodservices. com.au/fishnames/). Both wild-capture and aquaculture-produced species were reviewed in the Guide. Wild-capture species included those caught by a range of methods, e.g. prawn and finfish trawl methods, gill and seine nets, surface and seabed longlines, fish traps and hand collection. Species produced in aquaculture production included freshwater and marine species farmed or ranched using various methods, e.g. intensive open systems such as seacages (for finfish species), enclosed systems such as ponds and tanks (for both finfish, crustaceans and molluscs) and extensive open systems such as lines and racks (principally for molluscs). Imported species were not assessed due to the immense difficulty of getting relevant information about their sources, methods of capture or production, stock status and fisheries management regimes. The quantity of seafood imports into Australia continues to increase, and devising a method to assess the sustainability of imported species remains a challenge that must be confronted in the future.

19.2.1 Funding The original funding for the development of the Guide in 2004 was provided by The Myer Foundation. The Myer Foundation is a major Australian philanthropic organisation and one of the few which readily supports conservation organisations and programmes which are political (but non-partisan) in nature. The production of the 2006 Guide was funded by the Australian Marine Conservation Society’s internal donor base.

19.2.2 Information sources The Guide was developed by the staff of the Australian Marine Conservation Society. Fisheries and conservation experts were consulted informally at various stages during the Guide’s development regarding the Guide’s content, style and approach. All information contained in the Guide was sourced from BRS Fisheries Status Report 2004, the Australian Department of Environment Strategic Fishery Assessment

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:58

Guiding Australian Consumers to Sustainable Seafood Choices

393

Reports, and from publicly available and readily accessible fisheries management status reports or peer-reviewed technical papers published in the scientific literature about individual species or fisheries. The BRS Fisheries Status Report 2004 was the primary source used for wild-caught species included in the ‘Say No’ section of the Guide. BRS is responsible for assessing the health of over 80 of the main commercial species taken in Australia’s nationally managed fisheries. BRS reviews the current management arrangements for each species and the fishery from which it is taken and makes recommendations to the Australian Government via its Fisheries Status Reports (http://www.daff.gov.au/fisherystatus). The BRS process currently remains reasonably independent from political interference and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), tasked with managing fisheries on behalf of the Australian Government, provides direct input to BRS to assist with the assessments. Other information sources, such as fisheries management committee papers or those found in the unpublished literature were not included in the Guide because of the difficulty in finding these papers in some instances. Such material was not included to ensure that a standard level of information was applied consistently across all species assessed. Regional (State- and Territory-level) assessments of species were also not fully integrated into the Guide as they were deemed far less independent than the assessments contained within the BRS report. In Australia, regional assessment reports are often developed by the same agency (and usually the same individuals) that manage the fisheries in question.

19.2.3 Target audiences The target audiences for the Guide were:

r the Australian consumer with a growing interest in the sustainability of their seafood choices – the main target audience for the Guide;

r the Australian media which offers diverse and ongoing opportunities to expose the Guide and its concepts to a wider Australian audience;

r the decision makers including fisheries managers, ministers, and Federal and state/territory governments (local government currently has no direct role in fisheries management in Australia); and r the seafood industry including the wild fishery and aquaculture sectors, seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers (restaurants, fishmongers and supermarkets).

19.2.4 Measuring sticks The following measures were used to gauge the success of the Guide:

r number of Guides sold and distributed; r number of 3 Step Pocket Guides distributed;

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

394

r r r r r r

18:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

breadth of distribution of the Guide; quantity, quality and diversity of media exposure; staying power of the Guide in the media; volume and quality of written and verbal feedback received; impact on public attitudes; and impact of the Guide on fisheries management.

19.3 Species Assessments A range of attributes were considered in the assessment of species included in the Guide. These attributes included the biology of the species, geographical range and abundance, history of exploitation, current exploitation rates, current stock status, availability to fishing, as well as consideration of the management challenges currently facing the species.

19.3.1 Criteria – wild fisheries A set of criteria were defined to guide the assignment of each species to a category: ‘Say No’ species, ‘Think Twice’ species and ‘Better Choice’ species (Plate 19.1).

‘Say No’ species The following criteria applied to species included in the ‘Say No’ category: (a) the species is currently listed by BRS as being ‘overfished’, e.g. redfish; or (b) the species or species group is of broad conservation concern, e.g. broadbill swordfish, sharks and rays; or (c) the species is reared in seacage aquaculture production systems (which are considered widely by conservationists as an unsustainable method of aquaculture production, e.g. Atlantic salmon, ocean trout). In the 2004 report, BRS listed the following species as ‘overfished’: Blue Warehou (Seriolella brama) Broadbill Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Commercial Scallop (Pecten fumatus) Eastern Gemfish (Rexea solandri) Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) Redfish (Centrberyx affinis) Silver Trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex) Southern Blue-fin Tuna (Thunnus maccoyii)

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:58

Guiding Australian Consumers to Sustainable Seafood Choices

395

From the wild-capture sector, oreos (Oreosomatidae species) and sharks and rays (Chondrichthyan species) were also included in the ‘Say No” section of the expanded edition Guide. At the time the second edition of the Guide was released, these species were not classified by BRS as ‘overfished’ but were deemed by the Australian Marine Conservation Society to be of sufficient conservation concern to be included in this section. Oreos are deep-sea species that are particularly vulnerable to overfishing (Rogers 2004). Oreos are taken by deep-sea otterboard trawlers of southern Australia as part of the Southern and Eastern Scale Fish and Shark Fishery (www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/sess/sess/default.htm). The Australian Marine Conservation Society asked consumers to avoid eating oreos to help convince the AFMA that oreos fishing was not sustainable and that deep-sea trawling (below 500 m) should be phased because of its impact on deep-sea habitats. More recently, BRS listed oreos as ‘overfished’ in its 2005 Fishery Status Report (www.affashop.gov.au/product.asp?prodid=13611), and this will be reflected in future editions of the Guide. Most populations of sharks and rays (chondrichthyan species) are of low productivity relative to teleost fishes – a consequence of their different life-history strategies (IUCN 2003a, Stevens et al. 2000). Historically, many shark fisheries were characterised by boom and bust cycles of exploitation, making the fisheries economically unviable and leaving behind a locally depleted population (Fowler et al. 2002). As fisheries have expanded to meet the growing demand for shark fins and other shark products over the last two decades, few shark populations now remain unexploited or are given the opportunity to recover (Fowler et al. 2002). On these grounds, the Australian Marine Conservation Society decided to include all chondrychthians in the ‘Say No’ section of the Guide. More recently, BRS has listed Australia’s deepwater sharks as ‘overfished’ in its 2005 Fishery Status Report, vindicating the early concerns about the conservation of sharks. The recent findings of BRS will be reflected in future editions of the Guide.

‘Think Twice’ species The following criteria applied to species included in the ‘Think Twice’ category: (a) the species is currently not listed by BRS as being ‘overfished’; and/or (b) the species is considered by BRS or a fisheries management agency as being in the process of being ‘overfished’, e.g. pink ling, or regionally ‘overfished’, e.g. snapper; and/or (c) The Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) Strategic Assessment Reports (http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/index.html) or individual scientific reports paint a picture of high fishing pressure and/or low species

BLBK019-Ward

396

May 24, 2008

18:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

knowledge and/or lack of management infrastructure and/or moderate to high species vulnerability and/or history of species decline; or (d) the aquaculture methods employed pose considerable environmental risks but those risks are considered avoidable with greater attention and investment in solution seeking, e.g. prawn ponds, pond/tank finfish aquaculture. Species categorised as ‘Think Twice’ are those that, with some improvements in their management, could in the future be categorised as ‘Better Choice’ species. The Australian Marine Conservation Society used the Guide to alert consumers about the plight of these species which are not currently listed by BRS as ‘Overfished’ but are of growing conservation concern.

‘Better Choice’ species The following criteria applied to species included in the “Better Choice” category: (a) the species is not listed by BRS as ‘overfished’ or as ‘being overfished’; and (b) the species is relatively robust and of no major regional concern; and (c) the species is relatively well managed; or (d) the species is produced in extensive aquaculture system or in fully closed aquaculture systems that do not rely on wild fisheries to produce fishmeal for feed. Species in the ‘Better Choice’ section of the Guide are those the Australian Marine Conservation Society recommends to consumers as preferred seafood options. However, a ‘Better Choice’ rating is not equivalent to a sustainability accreditation for the species, because even ‘Better Choice’ species are invariability captured or farmed, using methods operating in differing management systems, each of which faces its own unique set of sustainability challenges. For example, calamari is often caught using seabed trawlers, and while the calamari stocks may not be under threat, the trawling method used to capture them has impacts on seabed habitats and bycatch species.

19.3.2 Criteria – aquaculture Increasingly, consumers are seeking advice about the sustainability of different types of aquaculture, particularly as concerns about the impacts of activities such as seacage aquaculture and prawn farming increase. To guide consumers towards more

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:58

Guiding Australian Consumers to Sustainable Seafood Choices

397

environmentally benign aquaculture systems, the Australian Marine Conservation Society devised the following rating system: ‘Say No’ – Open-system, intensive aquaculture types with feed added, e.g. seacage fish farming; ‘Think Twice’ – Closed and semi-closed system intensive fish (e.g. tank- or pondreared barramundi) and coastal prawn farming, with feed added; ‘Better Choice’ – Open-system aquaculture types with no feed added, e.g. oyster racks, mussel lines; and small-scale pond and tank invertebrate farming with feed added, e.g. crayfish ponds.

Species grown in seacage aquaculture fish pens were categorised in the ‘Say No’ section of the Guide. This was a policy decision made by the Australian Marine Conservation Society due to an extensive list of concerns about seacage aquaculture production systems. Concerns include the potential for such aquaculture systems to introduce disease to wild fish populations; the high risk of escapes of captive animals and their potential impact on marine ecosystems; the potential to establish self-sustaining populations, the nutrient loading to marine systems, and the sourcing of feed from wild fisheries (thus adding pressure to wild fisheries); and unacceptably low food conversion ratios. Growing carnivorous finfish in ponds and tanks where feed is added does not resolve the issue about sourcing of fishmeal from wild fisheries or unacceptable food conversion ratios. However, many other environmental concerns such as waste and escapes can be managed through the closed-system nature of these operations. The Australian Marine Conservation Society therefore considers closed-system aquaculture more appropriate than seacage fish farming and thus species from closed-system operations are categorised as ‘Think Twice’ – of some concern but with issues that are resolvable. Domestic prawn species grown in coastal prawn farms, where feed is added, have also been categorised as ‘Think Twice’ species. Coastal prawn farms are mostly closed or semi-closed systems and so most of the environmental concerns with these operations can technically be managed. However, extensive areas of subtropical and tropical coastline in Australia have been cleared for prawn farming in the past and this is of concern and is emphasised in the Guide. Land clearing for new prawn farms continues in parts of north-western Australia where governments and industry have not apparently learnt from the mistakes of the past, and in the future editions of the Guide these operations would be considered less acceptable than the existing operations. Species such as oysters and mussels which are grown in open-system aquaculture arrangements, where no feed is added, or invertebrates grown in small-scale pond or tank aquaculture have been categorised in the ‘Better Choice’ section. The Guide emphasises that the assessment is sensitive to the scale of the operation and

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

398

18:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

that ‘Better Choice’ aquaculture species are generally sourced from small-scale operations. Large-scale mussel farming, for example, is specifically identified as a less acceptable system of aquaculture.

19.4 Guide impact The Guide remains one of the key independent education tools available to the Australian public to help them understand the nature of fishing and aquaculture practices and to help them come to terms with their role as increasingly discriminating consumers of seafood products. The popularity of the Guide is a reflection of its impact on the hearts and minds of Australian seafood consumers. Between April 2004 and January 2007, more than 22 000 copies of the Guide were distributed nationally and more than 70 000 3 Step Pocket Guides were provided to conservation groups, education institutions, dive groups, restaurants and community groups throughout Australia. The Guide has been presented in at least 85 radio stories, 110 print media articles, 30 special interest magazines, including several international magazines, and also at least 35 organisational newsletters. Consumer feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, including formal messages from five fisheries Ministers and three State-managed fisheries directors. The Guide has had a significant impact on the seafood retail sector and the Australian media, and many encouraging partnerships have developed as a result. These include:

r Partnering with prominent Brisbane chef, Russell Armstrong, to host a high

r r r

r

profile sustainable seafood promotional dinner in Brisbane in 2005 where a range of celebrities, politicians and influential people were invited to sample a range of ‘Better Choice’ seafood species from the Guide which were offered from hand-picked seafood providers; Partnering with SOS Restaurant in Melbourne, which inspired the restaurant’s vegetarian and seafood concept after the owner, Melbourne entrepreneur Paul Mathis, was inspired by the Guide (www.sosmelbourne.com.au); Partnering with high-profile Sydney restaurateur, Kylie Kwong, who launched the second edition of the Guide in 2006 and who promotes the Guide and public events; Partnering with prominent Australian author, Tim Winton, who wrote the Foreword for the second edition of the Guide and is a consistent moral and philanthropic supporter of the Australian Marine Conservation Society’s Sustainable Seafood programme (www.marineconservation.org.au/seafood); and Partnering with the Australian media, where interest in the Guide, its concepts and purposes, has blossomed and created a new and exciting dialogue about sustainable seafood topics. Increasingly, authors are writing books which include a discussion about sustainable seafood, or reproductions of elements of the Guide.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:58

Guiding Australian Consumers to Sustainable Seafood Choices

399

Radio and print journalists are becoming more articulate in their presentation of sustainable seafood topics and are increasingly creating opportunities to discuss these in their programming. Some television producers and several film and documentary makers have also begun exploring sustainable seafood topics and use the Guide and the Australian Marine Conservation Society as a key source of information and advice. Unfortunately, the Guide has perhaps had less visible impact on the wild fishery and aquaculture sectors, although it is notoriously difficult to measure the impact in these areas. In recent times, both sectors have become increasingly sophisticated at marketing the environmental credentials of their products despite an overwhelming lack of independent evidence that would support most of these claims. These sectors also continue to enjoy strong political favour, particularly due to their electoral influence and increasing sophistication of their lobbying tactics. It is encouraging, though, that individual wild fishery and aquaculture operators are striving for environmental improvement and a small but increasing number of businesses contact the Australian Marine Conservation Society directly to discuss the ecological sustainability of their operations. The Guide is encouraging more consumers and the media to ask questions of government about the sustainability of Australia’s wild fishery and aquaculture sectors. Though it is also difficult to measure this impact, Australian governments are becoming increasingly aware of the community ‘mood’ in favour of seafood sustainability and are beginning to respond. In recent times, Australian governments have worked more assiduously to constrain fishing effort and reduce ecological impacts of the fishing and aquaculture sectors, and perhaps the Guide has had some influence on this trend, particularly in its efforts to prevent overfishing. However, governments have a long way to go before they can claim that Australia’s wild fishery and aquaculture sectors are sustainably managed. Governments still dogmatically protect even the most unsustainable fisheries which, in the view of the Australian Marine Conservation Society, should have already been closed, such as deep-sea fisheries (those below 500 m), southern blue fin tuna and directed shark fisheries. Unsustainable seacage aquaculture ventures and prawn farming continues to be developed in some regions despite strong opposition from conservationists.

19.5 The challenges Delivering sustainable seafood options to consumers and advising on these through publications such as the Guide, remains immensely challenging in the Australian context. There is a paucity of information about seafood sustainability, and the complex nature of fishing exacerbates this problem. There is jurisdictional complexity as stocks are shared between jurisdictions and managed under differing regimes.

BLBK019-Ward

400

May 24, 2008

18:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

Seafood labelling also remains inconsistent, inaccurate and inadequate and thus unable to provide the consumers with all the information they need to make ethical choices.

19.5.1 Paucity of information The paucity of information about Australian seafood species is extensive – little is understood about the life histories, ecological roles and vulnerabilities to fishing pressures, and there is little information about the cumulative impact of fishing along with habitat loss, pollution and the impacts of climate change on most species and ecological systems. Nowhere is paucity of information better reflected than in the lack of content, consistency and transparency of fishery status reports. These reports are developed by Australian national, state and territory governments to communicate the status of Australia’s fisheries to the public. A notable exception may be the BRS reporting system discussed above. The Australian Marine Conservation Society drew on a wide range government fishery reports during the development of the Guide. We found, however, that the quality of these reports varied markedly and thus were, in the main, relatively unreliable sources of information. Government reports suffer from the fact that they are invariably developed by the fishery management agencies themselves, and are prone to considerable use of positive, or at best, neutral language. These reports mostly outline the status of fisheries in positive terms, rather than focusing on the concerns, issues or challenges to be faced. This tends to obscure the issues, or in some jurisdictions, to explicitly divert attention away from key fishery management failures and challenges. Government reports rarely admit to any form of problem and focus extensively on reporting catch statistics, catch trends, and ongoing and proposed research and information needs. Government reports are not independently prepared or peer reviewed, and normally can be used only to determine the institutional perspective of the day, not the true status of the fish stocks. Difficulties or issues with the fisheries are usually couched in very careful terms, and often make sense to only very well informed experts who already understand the issues and uncertainties. One example is the 2004 Shark Fishery Status Report for the Northern Territory (NT) Fishery Joint Authority (NTJAF). This report avoids any discussion about threats to sharks by the domestic fleet (www.nt.gov.au/dpifm/Fisheries/ Content/File/2004 FSR shark.pdf) even though the Australian Marine Conservation Society had previously raised significant concerns about this issue with both the NT and Australian governments and had asked for this fishery to be closed. Fortunately, governments can be proactive about conservation issues and challenges when they choose. For example, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) has published an insightful report about the status of sharks and rays in the Great Barrier Reef. The report is frank about our lack of knowledge about sharks and raises concerns with ongoing impacts and declines (http://www.gbrmpa.

BLBK019-Ward

May 24, 2008

18:58

Guiding Australian Consumers to Sustainable Seafood Choices

401

gov.au/corp site/info services/publications/sotr/sharks rays/). However, the state of Queensland (QLD) is the principal manager of shark fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, not the GBRMPA.

19.5.2 Resolving the complex nature of fishing Australia encompasses eight main geopolitical jurisdictions, each with a responsibility and unique management regime for marine areas. Each of these jurisdictions has spawned a myriad of bilateral and multilateral domestic and international fisheries agreements to manage the fish populations. However, most of these management boundaries have little or no regard for natural ecological boundaries or species ranges and thus often greatly differing fishing techniques and management systems are applied to the one fish population. For example, the Ocean Trap and Line Fishery, managed by the state of New South Wales (NSW), overlaps in species and methods with the QLD-managed Inshore Finfish Fishery to the north of NSW, and with the nationally managed Gillnet, Hook and Trap Fishery which principally operates to the south of NSW. Both the NSW and QLD fisheries are managed using a regime of gear and boat restrictions (input controls) with few catch restrictions, while the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Fishery is principally managed by a system of output controls in the form of total allowable catches, with few input controls.

19.5.3 Inadequate seafood labelling One of the major problems with purchasing seafood in Australia is the lack of information about seafood products at the point of sale. The Australian Marine Conservation Society promotes the need for seafood labelling to include the standardised name of the species, the name of the company and country of source, and the type of fishing gear employed in the species’ capture or aquaculture harvest. Unfortunately, in the absence of a comprehensive national seafood labelling system, it is almost impossible for the consumer to be fully informed. As a result, it is extremely difficult for the Australian Marine Conservation Society to provide consumers with a seafood Guide that they can always apply to their choices at the seafood counter.

19.6 New directions A new direction is clearly needed in Australia to achieve wide-scale adoption of sustainable seafood practices within the seafood industry. While Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide will continue to play a key independent auditing role and source of advice for ethical seafood consumers, it is likely that sustainable seafood policies and seafood certification programmes will eventually be adopted by the large Australian seafood retailers, and to a lesser extent by the restaurant sector.

BLBK019-Ward

402

May 24, 2008

18:58

Seafood Ecolabelling

If this occurs, then this will significantly broaden public exposure to sustainable seafood concepts and cause governments and the seafood industry to engage more strategically in marketing sustainable seafood products. The growing engagement of major retailers in the US, Canada, Europe and Japan in sustainable seafood programmes may be a signal of possible things to come for Australian seafood consumers. If these changes do come, then it can only be good for conserving the health and productivity of Australia’s fish species and the diverse and wondrous ecosystems that supply them.

References Fowler, S.L., Cavanagh, R.D., Camhi, M., Burgess, G.H., Cailliet, G.M., Fordham, S.V., Simpfendorfer, C.A. & Musick, J.A. (2002) Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes – Status Survey. IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Cambridge, UK. IUCN (2003a) Life history patterns and correlations in sharks, IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 8(4), 299–344. McLoughlin, K. (Ed.) (2006) Fishery status reports 2005: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian government. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia. Rogers, A. (2004) The biology of deep sea corals. British Antarctic Survey. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Cambridge, UK. Stevens, J.D., Bonfil, R., Dulvy, N.K. & Walker, P.A. (2000) The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 476–494. Ward, T.J. & Butler, A. (2006) Coasts and Oceans, theme commentary prepared for the 2006 Australia State of the Environment Committee. Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra, Australia. Available at: www.deh.gov.au/soe/2006/commentaries/ coasts/index.html [accessed on 26 March 2007]. Yearsley, G.K., Last, P.R. & Ward, R.D. (2001) Australian seafood – domestic species. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Australia.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

2:4

Chapter 20

Towards Sustainable Seafood: The Evolution of a Conservation Movement Michael Sutton and Laura Wimpee

20.1 Introduction In the early 1990s, the international conservation community began to turn its attention from the terrestrial environment to the oceans. While a few organisations in the US and overseas – such as the Center for Marine Conservation (now the Ocean Conservancy) and Greenpeace – had a tradition of ocean work, the mainstream conservation community had mostly ignored the oceans for the previous two decades. Aside from high-profile issues such as the conservation of whales and dolphins, the ocean environment and especially fisheries were essentially left to the attention of government, industry and user groups. Around 1990, the National Audubon Society, World Wildlife Fund and others began to hire marine specialists and develop ocean conservation programmes of their own, encouraged by key funders such as the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts. It quickly became obvious that governments, including that of the US, had seriously mismanaged the ocean environment. Management failures were painfully evident at all levels of government. The cod crisis in New England and maritime Canada had left thousands of fishermen out of work and on government welfare programmes (Kurlansky 1997). The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) had presided over 30 years of overfishing with the result that species like bluefin tuna, swordfish and white marlin were at all-time low abundance. The population of Atlantic bluefin tuna, for example, was estimated to be at less than 10% of its historical unfished size. Governments sometimes resorted to extraordinary measures in an attempt to deal with the social implications of fishery management failures. In 1990, Massachusetts Governor Weld, for example, on behalf of his beleaguered cod fishermen, attempted to tap into the Earthquake Relief Fund created by Congress in the wake of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in California. That led one observer to note that the main SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

403

BLBK019-Ward

404

May 27, 2008

2:4

Seafood Ecolabelling

difference between the earthquake victims and New England cod fishermen was that Californians did not cause the earthquake, whereas the cod crisis was largely self-inflicted! During this time, fisheries scientists regularly sounded the alarm regarding the need for stronger management measures. However, the realpolitik of fisheries frequently defeated the scientists’ calls for restraint. Leading members of Congress from coastal states routinely intervened with the regional fishery management councils on behalf of their constituents. As a result, federal fisheries managers often focused on resource allocation issues rather than conservation, a practice that became known as ‘rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic’ (Lemonick 1994). As a result, fisheries continued to decline across the board. As conservationists studied this situation, it became apparent that the industry’s influence over US domestic and international fishery management was so powerful that it effectively forestalled serious management reforms. Despite these formidable political barriers to fisheries reform, the conservation community mustered its troops and achieved a few victories. In 1996, for example, Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which re-authorised and strengthened the Magnuson Act over the objections of the committees of jurisdiction. It took three unusual floor votes in the House of Representatives for that body to finally approve the bill. But the Act, while a significant departure from past practice, did not deal at all with issues such as reform of the industry-dominated management councils, whose members are exempted from federal conflicts of interest laws. Even in 2006, when Congress again re-authorised the act, there was no meaningful reform of the council system. The realpolitik of fisheries, coupled with the pace of depletion of many ocean fisheries, led conservationists to reluctantly conclude that they could not rely on governments to restore and conserve marine fisheries. The slow pace of the public policy process and the oligarchy of fisheries led many observers to believe that new and more influential approaches would be necessary. Accordingly, conservation organisations and funders such as WWF (World Wildlife Fund), Greenpeace, the Packard Foundation and newly created SeaWeb began to turn instead towards the market itself.

20.2 Early campaigns Paul Hawken, in his groundbreaking work The Ecology of Commerce (Hawken 1994), argued that the only force powerful enough to counter the unsustainable use of natural resources such as timber, rangelands and wilderness is commerce itself. Ocean conservationists began to think about how that might be applied to fisheries. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an independent effort to assess and certify environmentally friendly logging and forestry practices, seemed to be having an influence on the large and powerful forest products industry. Leading

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

2:4

Towards Sustainable Seafood

405

conservationists then began asking themselves – why not try and do the same for the seafood industry and swing its support behind efforts to make fishery management more effective? The sustainable seafood movement was founded on the premise that public policy alone will not save marine fisheries. The idea was to harness market forces and consumer power to build powerful incentives for ocean conservation. Knowing how politically potent industry can be, conservationists hoped that leading seafood companies – acting in their own enlightened self-interest – might be persuaded not only to change their own business practices but also to lobby for meaningful management reforms. Conservationists also sought to enlist seafood consumers around the US and convince them to demand fish and shellfish from sustainable sources. The National Audubon Society’s Living Oceans Program (now the Blue Ocean Institute) was the first to issue a consumer guide to environmentally friendly seafood in 1998. The Audubon Guide to Seafood was published in the May–June 1998 issue of Audubon Magazine (see Chapter 7). It was an instant success, in part, because it offered consumers something they could do in their own lives to make a difference. The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch programme was launched in 2001 (see Chapter 17) with similar results. For the first time, seafood lovers had information at their fingertips that enabled them to make better choices on behalf of ocean conservation. Enter the celebrity chef! Early architects of the movement, such as SeaWeb, recognised that conservationists needed powerful allies to be effective (see Chapter 6). SeaWeb, founded in 1995, brought the principles of social marketing and strategic communications to the ocean conservation community for the first time. In 1997, SeaWeb launched the Give Swordfish A Break campaign with the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Wildlife Conservation Society (Basile 2001). They set out to recruit celebrity chefs, already committed to the organic foods movement, to draw attention to the decline of Atlantic swordfish and the need for better management. The response was immediate – leading chefs such as Nora Pouillon of Washington DC’s Restaurant Nora and Rick Moonen of New York’s Oceana quickly became spokespeople for the swordfish campaign (Seaweb 1999, Basile 2001). Their message was simple: take Atlantic swordfish off your menus until such time as the species’ 30-year decline could be reversed by the US and ICCAT. Hundreds of chefs and restaurateurs eventually joined the campaign. The seafood industry and swordfish fishers were incensed. Past consumer boycotts had proven highly effective at convincing countries like Iceland, Norway and Japan to cease commercial whaling and join the International Whaling Commission. Later, in 1990, consumer pressure also succeeded in persuading US tuna importers to deal only in dolphin-safe (or dolphin-friendly) tuna. But Give Swordfish A Break was a different type of campaign – it was not about marine mammals, it concerned the fish themselves. The National Fisheries Institute (NFI), the Blue Water Fishermen’s Association and other leading trade organisations viewed the

BLBK019-Ward

406

May 27, 2008

2:4

Seafood Ecolabelling

campaign as a boycott and vowed to discredit and defeat it. They were concerned that the campaign would merely put US swordfishers out of work while having no effect on imports of juvenile swordfish from European suppliers. But the tactics that had worked so well for the seafood industry in the public policy arena – such as discrediting science and fostering uncertainty – were not well suited to deal with a high-profile campaign led by celebrity chefs and based on social marketing and strategic communications. Ironically, the campaign was aided by the 2000 Hollywood film, A Perfect Storm, starring George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg as fishermen caught by a storm far offshore, where they had to travel to catch large swordfish no longer found inshore. The film was based on a true story chronicled by former New England swordfish Captain Linda Greenlaw, who was ultimately enlisted by the seafood industry in an unsuccessful effort to defeat the Give Swordfish A Break campaign. The swordfish campaign ran until 2000, when it was ended by its founders after the US closed more than 11 000 square miles of the Atlantic to swordfishing and convinced ICCAT to adopt a recovery plan for the species. For the first time, the campaign succeeded in bringing fishing industry representatives to the table and forcing them to negotiate reductions in catch and the closure of areas of ocean to longline fishing (the preferred method of catching swordfish). Blue Water Fishermen’s Association claimed that the campaign had affected the livelihoods of its members due to cancelled and diminished orders for swordfish from retailers (Nussbaum 1998). What began as a consumer awareness effort ended up having a reportedly profound economic effect on the seafood industry.

20.3 From stick to carrot: The Marine Stewardship Council In 1995, the Endangered Seas Campaign of WWF International, based in London, began discussions with Unilever Corporation that would ultimately lead to the formation of the world’s first independent certification and ecolabelling programme for wild-capture fisheries. Surprisingly, the world’s largest conservation organisation (with offices in more than 50 countries) had much in common with the Anglo-Dutch transnational consumer products giant. At that time, Unilever was one of the leading processors of frozen fish, supplying about one-quarter of the US and European market with products such as fish sticks (known as ‘fish fingers’ in Europe). Unilever executives read with growing alarm of the press reports of overfishing and destructive fishing practices. They saw these as significant risks to their successful frozen foods businesses such as Bird’s Eye in the United Kingdom, Gorton’s of Gloucester in the US and Iglo in Germany. Unilever had also recently experienced the ‘Mad Cow’ crisis in the UK, where a public scare over tainted beef that caused the disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy had cost the company millions of pounds sterling as consumers across Europe lost confidence in

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

2:4

Towards Sustainable Seafood

407

Unilever’s beef products. Understandably, Unilever did not wish to see millions of seafood consumers lose confidence in its fish products. Unilever and WWF realised that while their motivations differed, they shared a common goal of ending overfishing and safeguarding ocean ecosystems from further harm. WWF was interested in protecting the ocean environment for its own sake, while Unilever was committed to the future of its successful frozen foods enterprise. In February 1996, WWF Director General Claude Martin and Unilever Chairman Antony Burgmans met over dinner in The Hague to sign an agreement heralding an unprecedented business/environment partnership (FAO 1996a). The two leading non-profit and business entities agreed to collaborate in the creation of a new organisation to be known as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). From the outset, the WWF/Unilever partnership was beset by critics. Many staff at both entities did not favour collaboration at all, referring to it as ‘getting in bed with the enemy’. In the mid-1990s, the business/environment partnership was a relatively new concept and few if any examples could be found in Europe. The World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) – of which Unilever was a founding member – had only recently introduced the concept that businesses could contribute positively to sustainability. The WBCSD was founded in 1990 by forward-thinking Swiss industrialist Stephan Schmidheiny (WBCSD 2007). But the staff leaders for the WWF/Unilever partnership were both from North America (the US and Canada, respectively), and Unilever’s staff leader had experienced Canada’s cod crisis first-hand. She was determined that Unilever should play a part in developing solutions rather than contributing to the problem of unsustainable fishing. The partnership was further assisted by Burson-Marsteller, the giant public relations firm on permanent retainer to Unilever. Burson-Marsteller wanted more than anything else for its client to reap the benefits of green publicity, provided it was deserved. Few transnational companies are more conservative than the Anglo-Dutch giant Unilever. However, the corporation also has strong Dutch Calvinist roots and a concomitant natural affinity for corporate social responsibility. Burson-Marsteller executives suspected that the Unilever board would approve a partnership with WWF aimed at combating unsustainable fishing. One Unilever board member later reported that during the board’s discussion of the idea, a fellow board member raised the prospect that helping solve the fisheries crisis could cost the company millions. Another said, ‘But doing nothing would ultimately cost us more’. And he carried the day. Unilever and WWF took the idea of forming a Marine Stewardship Council (modelled loosely on the FSC) on a world tour, co-sponsoring eight workshops in as many countries. The two partners each also spoke about the idea separately at industry meetings and NGO conferences. In 1996, WWF presented a paper to a packed audience at the second World Fisheries Congress in Brisbane arguing that the MSC would help create a new paradigm for managing marine fisheries

BLBK019-Ward

408

May 27, 2008

2:4

Seafood Ecolabelling

in the next millennium (Sutton 1998). Initial reaction was generally cautious and guarded, with plenty of scepticism from environmentalists and industry alike. The NFI board, in particular, and its global counterpart, the International Council of Fisheries Associations, voted to not cooperate with WWF and Unilever in this endeavour, hoping the MSC initiative would die of its own accord. Meanwhile, WWF and Unilever recognised that the new entity would need to be firmly grounded in science and have its own set of robust standards for effective fishery management. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had recently published its Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, but this was viewed by many NGOs as too weak and non-binding (voluntary) in nature. WWF and Unilever convened two drafting workshops – one in 1996 in Bagshot, UK, and the other in 1997 at Airlie House, Virginia – to develop a set of Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing that would underpin its programme of environmental certification and labelling. Workshop participants included a veritable Who’s Who of fisheries science and management, including Dr Sidney Holt, co-author of On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations, the bible of fishery management (Beverton & Holt 1957). The framers of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria worked with the FAO Code of Conduct along with principles for sustainable fisheries espoused by many other organisations including WWF and Greenpeace. The MSC was formally created as an independent non-profit organisation in 1997, and The Rt. Hon. John Gummer, MP, was chosen as founding chairman (WWFUK 1998). Gummer, a Conservative Member of Parliament in the UK, had served for many years as both fisheries minister and environment minister in previous governments. He immediately recognised that governments were seriously limited by politics in their ability to resolve the fisheries crisis and grasped the need for an organisation like the MSC. Gummer built a board of like-minded people, including seafood industry executives and former government ministers from Brazil, the US and other countries. The board then set about putting the MSC on the map, politically. They recognised that while the MSC had to remain independent of any particular political agenda, its purpose was nonetheless ultimately to affect the politics of fishing. Over the next 7 years, the organisation flirted with bankruptcy but slowly built its credibility and market penetration. During that time, the MSC experienced tough scrutiny by both the industry and the conservation community. Notably, the independent evaluations conducted by several MSC funders in 2002–2004 helped identify critical weaknesses in the organisation and its operations and management. The two most rigorous evaluations of the MSC were carried out by the Bridgespan Group (on behalf of the Packard Foundation) and Wildhavens, a consultancy retained by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Between them, the two reports advanced nearly 50 recommendations for action. For example, the evaluations suggested that the MSC improve the quality and consistency of fishery assessments and the enforcement of corrective actions. They also recommended that the MSC should

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

2:4

Towards Sustainable Seafood

409

develop metrics and track and communicate specific environmental progress against its Principles and Criteria (Leape & Sutton 2004). The MSC took these two evaluations and their recommendations very seriously. In the face of mounting criticism, both the MSC chairman and its chief executive stepped down in 2004, and the board launched a Quality and Consistency project under the auspices of its technical advisory board and senior staff. This project – which is ongoing – has led to a number of improvements in the MSC’s programme, including its certification methodology. Today, under the guidance of its new chairman and chief executive, the MSC is acknowledged as the world’s leading seafood certification and ecolabelling organisation. NFI, which made an abortive attempt to create its own seafood labelling scheme in the late 1990s (known as the ‘Responsible Fisheries Society of the United States’), finally threw in the towel and agreed to cooperate with the MSC. The tremendous growth in popularity of the sustainable seafood movement in the United States and Europe convinced both NFI’s executive director and chairman to accept invitations to join the MSC board in early 2007.

20.4 Sustainable seafood goes mainstream The growth of the sustainable seafood movement in the United States and around the world paralleled the development of the MSC itself. Within a decade, ‘sustainability’ became a buzzword in the seafood industry. After years of paying little heed to issues such as overfishing and destructive fishing practices, the seafood industry finally began to embrace the idea of sustainable fishing. Soon, the industry realised that it could benefit from the marketing advantages associated with the growth of the organic and sustainable foods sector. The industry finally decided that it could portray sustainable seafood as good for both the environment and the consumers themselves. Slowly but surely, the concept of sustainable seafood began to move from the niche market to the mainstream as more and more companies announced they would buy their seafood only from sustainable sources. The years following the groundbreaking agreement between WWF and Unilever that led to the creation of the MSC saw the formation of further business/environment partnerships aimed at promoting sustainable fisheries. For example, in 2001, the New England Aquarium partnered with Ahold USA, a division of Royal Ahold and a major supermarket holding company that owned more than 1600 grocery stores in the eastern United States (see Chapter 1). In February 2006, after months of behind-the-scenes negotiations with WWF, Conservation International and the MSC, Wal-Mart announced that it was adopting a new corporate policy on sustainable seafood. Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer and the biggest food retailer in the United States, announced that it would seek to deal only in MSC-certified seafood within 3–5 years. This announcement sent shock

BLBK019-Ward

410

May 27, 2008

2:4

Seafood Ecolabelling

waves through the seafood industry. Most seafood companies of any size supply Wal-Mart as a matter of survival. Wal-Mart’s business is so important to many of these companies that they employ representatives based in Bentonville, Arkansas, where Wal-Mart’s corporate headquarters is located. At the time of Wal-Mart’s announcement, many of these companies either had no knowledge of the MSC or did not deal in certified seafood products. Shortly after the announcement, Wal-Mart convened an extraordinary meeting at its headquarters. Wal-Mart invited its seafood suppliers to meet with leading members of the marine conservation community to foster better working relationships. Company executives explained that their support for sustainable seafood was part of Wal-Mart’s broader environmental initiative, which had three goals: 100% renewable energy, zero waste and sustainable products. For many of the conservationists present, it was gratifying to see so many seafood suppliers taking note and pledging their allegiance to sustainability, even though this was probably only because Wal-Mart was insisting on it. Shortly after Wal-Mart’s groundbreaking announcement, the Compass Group North America, the largest food service company in the Western Hemisphere with $7.5 billion in revenues and more than 152 000 associates throughout the US, Canada and Latin America, made a similar proclamation. The Compass Group announcement was the result of more than a year of negotiations with its subsidiary, Palo Alto-based Bon Appetit Management Company and the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch programme. Bon Appetit, an acknowledged source of innovation within the Compass Group of companies, had been exposed to the principles of sustainable seafood through its vendor agreement to operate the food service facilities at the aquarium (see Chapter 17). In 2005, Bon Appetit and the aquarium formed a partnership known as Making Waves aimed at educating Bon Appetit chefs and clients, and ultimately persuading the entire Compass Group North America – including its other subsidiaries – to make a commitment to buy its seafood from sustainable sources. As a result, in February 2006, the Compass Group announced its new policy and shortly thereafter convened a meeting of its culinary leaders at the aquarium to learn more about sustainable seafood. While the Compass Group’s announcement initially was not as far-reaching as Wal-Mart’s commitment – for example, it made no mention of ultimately buying only ecolabelled seafood – no one missed the fact that the leading companies in the food retail and food service sectors had made back-to-back commitments to sustainable seafood. Since these two sectors each account for approximately half of the seafood sales in the United States, this amounted to an endorsement of the sustainable seafood movement by the nation’s biggest seafood buyers. The simultaneous action of Wal-Mart and the Compass Group North America triggered a tidal wave of similar announcements from their competitors and related businesses. Sysco, the $70 billion leader of the food distribution sector in the United States, immediately began considering its role in supporting the sustainable seafood movement. Sysco had long been the target of specific campaigns such as

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

2:4

Towards Sustainable Seafood

411

the effort by the National Environmental Trust (now part of the Pew Environment Group) to wean the industry off farmed salmon. But it was not until the events of early 2006 that Sysco and others realised they could not avoid coming to grips with sustainable seafood. Sysco officials realised that many of their largest clients, such as the food service giant Aramark, were developing their own commitments to sustainable seafood. Sooner or later, food distributors would have to join their retail and food service cousins in supporting the movement. Sysco executives began exploring potential business/environment partnerships and attended the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Advisory Board meeting in 2006 as well as Cooking for Solutions, the organisation’s annual gala celebration of sustainable seafood, in 2007. Meanwhile, the announcements by Wal-Mart and the Compass Group erased any remaining doubt among leaders of the seafood industry that sustainability had become a mainstream business concern. The industry that had for so long eschewed the sustainable seafood movement was finally compelled to embrace it. After a decade of focusing on raising the salience of sustainable seafood, the movement had captured the attention not only of individual seafood lovers but also of the nation’s biggest seafood buyers themselves.

20.5 The future of sustainable seafood The developments of 2006–2007 presented the sustainable seafood movement with a new challenge. Because the ‘tipping point’ represented by Wal-Mart’s commitment was rather unexpected, demand for sustainable seafood quickly threatened to outstrip supply. At the time of the Wal-Mart announcement in early 2006, the MSC could only claim to have certified 16 fisheries worldwide, hardly sufficient to match the growing demand for sustainable seafood even though this number included high-volume/low-value fisheries such as Alaska pollock and Pacific cod. However, 19 fisheries were then in full assessment and 20 others were thought to be in confidential pre-assessment. One of the lessons learned over the years in the sustainable forest products industry was the critical importance of balancing demand with supply. An imbalance in either direction can spell real trouble for a nascent programme like the MSC. For their part, the leading proponents of sustainable seafood found themselves poorly prepared to cope with the demand for information among the retail and food service sectors. Most of these organisations had focused chiefly on educating seafood buyers on the need to exercise wise choices and winning new commitments from such buyers, the bigger the better. However, once a large-volume seafood buyer makes such a commitment and becomes an ally of the movement, they expect to rely on those who solicited their commitment to help them deliver results. But most of the organisations involved in the seafood movement actually have relatively limited understanding of the details of industry practices and needs.

BLBK019-Ward

412

May 27, 2008

2:4

Seafood Ecolabelling

To fill these needs, the leaders of the sustainable seafood movement realised they had to move quickly. The MSC and its funders agreed to dramatically increase the pace of fishery assessments and certification. The Walton Family Foundation, for example, made the largest grant the MSC had ever received to help accomplish this goal. The funders, notably the Packard Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation, also agreed to support a new type of organisation known as the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. The partnership seeks to ‘improve access to information to guide responsible seafood sourcing, and enhance the ability of seafood companies and partners to influence government fisheries policies and management practices to improve fisheries’. By mid-2007, more than 60 fisheries were engaged in the MSC programme (see Chapter 4), including 22 certified fisheries, 24 fisheries in full assessment, including the large-volume Pacific hake fishery, and more than 20 fisheries are in the confidential pre-assessment stage to determine whether they stand a reasonable chance of achieving MSC certification. If it is certified, the Pacific hake fishery will rank second only to the MSC-certified Alaska pollock fishery in size. These 60 fisheries together have annual catches of more than 3.5 million metric tons, representing 42% of the world’s wild salmon catch, 32% of the world’s whitefish catch and 18% of the world’s lobster catches. More than 600 seafood products bearing the MSC label are on sale around the world (Sustainable Food News 2007). The organisation is well on its way towards supplying the needs of those large-volume seafood buyers that have made commitments in favour of sustainable seafood. In late 2006, a group of leading marine scientists published a paper in the journal Science on marine ecosystem services that projected humanity will exhaust the supply of wild-caught seafood by 2048 if present trends continue (Worm et al. 2006). This finding was widely publicised and caused both controversy in the scientific community and consternation among government agencies charged with managing fisheries. Industry and conservation leaders agreed that the development of market-based approaches to conservation of the oceans should be accelerated. Sustainable seafood as a new commercial norm has always been a leading goal of the sustainable seafood movement. That goal now seems within reach. Ecolabelling will play a leading role in achieving that goal. However, moving the market is only the first step towards improving the effectiveness of fishery management and ultimately the health of the oceans. One of the leading challenges for the sustainable seafood movement will be to move beyond commitments to change seafood sourcing policies to collaboration with industry to directly influence fishery management itself. Today, it is difficult to imagine industry officials testifying in support of stricter management measures at congressional hearings or before regional fishery management councils. But unless that happens, the sustainable seafood movement will at best have an indirect influence on fishery management. Market-based approaches can never supplant or replace effective public policy, nor should they be expected to do so. The sustainable seafood movement represents an opportunity to create powerful new incentives for public officials to make better

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

2:4

Towards Sustainable Seafood

413

decisions and strengthen the effectiveness of the public policy process, leading to more effective fishery management. The United Nations suggests that if fisheries are managed better globally, we could take 10–20 million metric tonnes more seafood from the oceans on a sustainable basis (FAO 1996b). Whatever the truth of that projection, there is no doubt that aquaculture – fish farming – will play an increasingly important role in fulfilling the world’s demand for seafood.

20.6 The blue revolution Today, aquaculture is the fastest growing component of the global food sector. In the United States, seven of the top ten seafoods – including shrimp and salmon – are farmed to one extent or another (Johnson et al. 2006). Some of these, such as catfish and tilapia, come entirely from aquaculture operations. Tilapia is a modernday seafood success story, rising in a relatively short time from obscurity to the fifth most popular seafood in the US. But just as the Green Revolution gave us industrial farming practices at significant cost to the environment and the social fabric of farming communities, the blue revolution threatens to dramatically expand industrial fish farming and its environmental downsides. The enormous promise of aquaculture to help satisfy the growing demand for seafood is offset by the environmental threats posed by effluents, exotic species, disease amplification, releases of antibiotics and pesticides, habitat impacts (mangrove loss, etc.), and the use of low-value fish species such as sardines, anchovies and capelin to feed high-value farmed species such as salmon, tuna and shrimp. Farming carnivores such as salmon, tuna and shrimp on an industrial scale has proven especially problematic compared with the relatively modest environmental impacts of farming omnivores such as tilapia, carp and catfish. The need for market-based incentives for environmentally responsible aquaculture is clear. From the outset, the MSC was designed to deal only with wild-capture fisheries. While it was relatively simple for the FSC to extend its remit to encompass plantation forestry, it would prove much more difficult for the MSC to develop a programme to certify environmentally responsible fish farming. Indeed, it is generally acknowledged that aquaculture has more to learn from the sustainable agriculture movement than from efforts to reform the way fisheries are managed. In the absence of a credible, multi-stakeholder programme like the MSC to assess aquaculture operations for aquaculture, the industry developed the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) and its subsidiary, the Aquaculture Certification Council (see Chapter 5). The GAA was founded in 1997 and co-located its offices with those of the NFI, leaving no doubt as to the genesis of the organisation as an industry body. The GAA makes a good case for the need for aquaculture certification, but it seems certain that the ultimate effectiveness of any programme to assess and certify aquaculture operations will require more than the GAA and ACC are able to provide.

BLBK019-Ward

414

May 27, 2008

2:4

Seafood Ecolabelling

Robust standards, multi-stakeholder involvement, independence and financial stability are the hallmarks of a credible and durable ecolabelling programme. Over the years, the MSC has struggled to achieve these. The GAA and ACC, on the other hand, have none of these. Efforts are currently underway to either reform the GAA and ACC to help them develop these attributes or create a new organisation to assess and certify aquaculture operations that are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner. The MSC board decided in late 2006 not to immediately become involved in efforts to create such a programme but may do so in the future (Sustainable Food News 2006). Independent certification and ecolabelling of fisheries has proven to be an important component of market-based approaches to conservation of the oceans. It seems that market penetration has now been achieved in the US and many other western countries, and the movement has succeeded in building issue salience and attracting the attention of many of the world’s biggest seafood buyers. But only time will tell whether such approaches succeed in fostering more effective fishery management and ultimately lead to healthier ocean ecosystems and more sustainable supplies of seafood. Nonetheless, early signs suggest that large-volume seafood buyers are actively switching from the products of unsustainable fisheries to buying seafood from sustainable sources. For example, Birds Eye (UK) announced in mid-2007 that it would move its ‘fish fingers’ from Atlantic cod to Alaska pollock, certified by the MSC. According to Birds Eye, this move will save approximately 2 million cod in the North Sea each year (Topping 2007). As more and more corporations take similar action and sustainable seafood becomes the commercial norm, we can expect the oceans to begin to recover from decades of overexploitation and destructive fishing.

References Basile, T. (2001) Swordfish surprise. The Amicus Journal, Winter, 44–45. Beverton, R.J.H. & Holt, S.J. (1957) On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. Chapman and Hall, London. FAO (1996a) UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/ meeting/w3954e.htm [accessed on 1 November 2007]. FAO (1996b) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Available at: http://www.fao. org/docrep/003/W3265E/W3265E00.HTM [accessed on 1 November 2007]. Hawken, P. (1994) The Ecology of Commerce. HarperCollins, New York. Johnson, H.M. and Associates (2006). Annual Report on the United States Seafood Industry. H.M. Johnson and Associates, Jacksonville, OR. Available at: http://www.hmj. com/report.html [accessed on 1 November 2007]. Kurlansky, M. (1997) Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World. Alfred A. Knopf, Toronto. Leape, J.P. & Sutton, M. (2004) Memo: report of fisheries certification review workshop. Airlie House, Virginia, January 26–28, 2004. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, February 5, 2004.

BLBK019-Ward

May 27, 2008

2:4

Towards Sustainable Seafood

415

Lemonick, M.D. (1994) Too few fish in the sea. Time, 143(14), 48–49. Nussbaum, P. (1998) Chefs go toque-to-toque: area culinary rivals steam as swordfish boycott grows. Philadelphia Newspapers Inc., August 7, 1998. SeaWeb (1999) A letter from Nora Pouillon, January 15, 1999. Available at: http://seaweb. org/programs/swordfish/chefspledge.htm [accessed on 1 November 2007]. Sustainable Food News (2006). MSC denies farmed seafood eco-label. November 16, 2006. Sustainable Food News (2007). MSC’s seafood eco-labeling program expands into AsiaPacific. July 9, 2007. Sutton, M. (1998) A new paradigm for managing marine fisheries in the next millennium. In: M. Williams (Ed.) A Roadmap for the Future for Fisheries Conservation, ICLARM Conference Proceedings 56, pp. 51–58. Topping, A. (2007) Sustainable fish fingers from pollock, not cod. The Guardian, August 2, 2007. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/03/ conservation.food [accessed on 1 November 2007]. WBCSD (2007) World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Available at: http://www.wbcsd.ch/templates/TemplateWBCSD2/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=NDEx &doOpen=1& ClickMenu=LeftMenu [accessed on 1 November 2007]. Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, E., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J. & Watson, R. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ecosystem services. Science, 314, 787–790. WWF-UK. (1998) John Gummer appointed Chairman of Marine Stewardship Council. Available at: http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n 0000000218.asp. [accessed on 1 November 2007].

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

15:14

Chapter 21

Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade Trevor J. Ward and Bruce Phillips

21.1 Introduction In this final chapter, based on our experiences of the past decade with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) programme, we anticipate some of the key issues that seafood certification and ecolabelling will face in the next decade. It is clear that there is currently a rapidly increasing interest in certification and ecolabelling as one of the potentially useful policy tools that can be applied to fisheries and aquaculture globally to promote more environmentally responsible fishing and farming practices (discussed in Chapters 1 and 20). If recent trends in the uptake of certified products by resellers continue, the number and spread of ecolabels and product recommendations based on environmental issues will continue to increase. However, consumers seem largely unaware of the linkage between ecolabelled seafood and the ecological conditions of the oceans and fish stocks, or, perhaps even worse, at this stage not many seem to care (Urch 2003, Pryke 2007; see Chapter 2). Analysis of other certification systems suggests that even where there is a good measure of market impact of ecolabelled products, environmental benefits are not always created as a result (Muller 2002). In seafood, the dolphin-safe ecolabel is widely credited with reducing the bycatch of dolphins in tuna fishing. However, the reduction in dolphin bycatch was instigated by changes in fishery management before the certification system was created, and the dolphin-safe ecolabel is more effective as a marketing tool than as a mechanism for reducing dolphin bycatch (Brown 2005). In any case, despite the reduced dolphin bycatch, the affected dolphin populations have not recovered (Gerrodette & Forcada 2005), and it appears that reducing bycatch alone has not been enough to permit these populations to be restored. Currently, there is a profusion of dolphin-safe ecolabels in the global marketplace – apparently competing labels with different standards of protection for dolphins – and the initial market impact of the generic dolphin-safe ecolabel seems to have lapsed (see Chapter 10). Despite the contemporary popularity of voluntary systems of certification and ecolabelling, some observers (e.g. Muller 2002, Gulbrandsen 2006) argue that it will continue to be the role of governments to rationalise and manage standards for seafood production, and that voluntary certification/ecolabelling measures will 416

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

15:14

Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade

417

remain as supportive adjuncts to the other more traditional ‘top-down’ control measures. The evolutionary history of the dolphin-friendly ecolabel may be interpreted as supporting such arguments. Although the ecolabels of today are mainly focused on market issues, they are showing signs of adaptation and there is some hope that in the future they can also begin to achieve environmental outcomes.

21.2 Design of ecolabelling programmes The rapid proliferation of ecolabels, certification-based recommendations, ratings and guides in the marketplace is certain to heighten confusion in consumers’ minds. While it is clearly a benefit for competitive marketing purposes to create different labels to operate in different market niches and create product differentiation, the natural outcome of this market-based process is that consumers will rely less on the product claims and look more to the standing of the organisations behind the label or product recommendation. The ‘proliferation of self-serving seafood labels’ (Jacquet & Pauly 2007) is a predictable market response, and in other ecolabel systems has been used as a tool to create market niches and opportunities. These labels profess to have ecological benefits but may in fact have little relationship with sustainability of fish stocks or ecosystem improvements. For example, the Australian Southern Rock Lobster ‘Clean Green’ label promotes itself as a form of ‘ecolabel’, with a blue tick and a website clearly designed to influence consumers into thinking that there are ecological sustainability issues that underpin the label (http://www.southernrocklobster.com/cleangreen/default.aspx, Chapter 1). However, the programme rules for the ‘Clean Green’ self-assessment system have little relevance to ecological issues, relying on poorly specified forms of industry ‘best practice’, and there is no evidence that the label carries with it any form of ecological performance requirement that is exceptional or any ecological requirements that go beyond the ordinary requirements for rock lobster fishing. Further, there is no easily publicly accessible specification of the ‘Clean Green’ standard, the system of verification, reports of compliance issues, or any other form of public reporting that could be used to access information about the ecological performance of a fishery certified by this label. In other countries, the ecolabelling of seafood products has produced bans by celebrity chefs and rival supermarket chains of products bearing alternative ecolabels, with claims that the competing ecolabel is nothing more than a publicity stunt (Christie 2007a, b). In a market environment of many competing ecolabelling programmes with different standards, if there is no truly ‘gold-star’ certification and ecolabelling programme that provides the high-quality benchmark standard for ecological sustainability, then it seems likely that the overall effectiveness of seafood ecolabelling will go into decline. A plethora of competing claims and ecolabels will reduce the appeal of individual ecolabels to consumers, provide smaller returns for producers and reduce the incentive that drives the market-based process. This will inevitably

BLBK019-Ward

418

June 4, 2008

15:14

Seafood Ecolabelling

bring the focus more intensively onto the robustness of the design of certification programmes and directly onto the standards used for certification and product recommendation. However, it appears that to achieve ‘gold-star’ status with consumers an ecolabelling programme mainly needs to have a good marketing arm, but does not need to create major changes to ocean ecosystems or fish stocks. The MSC is currently the world’s leading ecolabelling programme for capture fisheries and might be considered by consumers to be the ‘gold-star’ programme, yet there is little evidence to suggest that it has created significant environmental change (Jacquet & Pauly 2007, Ward 2008). In other sectors the ecological outcomes from market-successful ecolabelling initiatives are still contested after operational lifetimes of up to 25 years (Muller 2002, Hassell 2005, Rotherham 2005, UNEP 2006). If a certification programme cannot directly create a big legacy of actual environmental changes, the unique role of ecolabelling as an agent for change becomes less clear. There are a number of other policy tools such as national legislation, community rules, and the more traditional tools of fisheries management that can (and indeed may be better placed to) drive environmental and fish stock improvements (Beddington et al. 2007). So, if there are no direct ecological improvements, the primary role for an ecolabelling programme may default to maintaining the public profile of the issues of ecological sustainability rather than directly driving changes in fishing practices. If consumers become aware that there may be problems with the standard/outcomes of certification (such as through the activities of specialist interest groups), they may demand that the seafood certification and ecolabelling of the future must deliver actual verified ecological changes. It seems most likely that such programmes will need to be narrowly focused, possibly based on specific fishery types, regions, or types of issues where specific standards can be set and where changes can be clearly documented in the short term. These programmes would need a design that explicitly targeted such objectives. In the beginning, the MSC programme was designed to reward a specified level of performance across all fisheries (as defined in the MSC Principles and Criteria), but now the programme has evolved to become an agent for creating change through the continuous improvement loop – the stepwise improvement of performance through applying sets of conditions within each 5-year period of certification. The initially envisaged MSC programme involved comparison of the current conditions in a fishery with the required standard. However, the present MSC design recognises the existing conditions and applies incremental change. Whether this has been the correct response to the many criticisms and issues experienced by the MSC programme remains to be seen. But there is no doubt that, as with all other ecolabelling programmes, the final test in the eyes of consumers (as informed by specialist interest groups) will eventually be – does the programme, either directly or indirectly, stop the decline of fish stocks and also create environmental improvements? If not, then the MSC will have a difficult pathway ahead. At this time, despite the raison

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

15:14

Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade

419

d’etre – ‘The MSC seeks to reverse the decline of fish stocks, safeguard livelihoods and deliver improvements in marine conservation worldwide’ (www.msc.org) – the MSC does not appear to recognise that documenting the direct ecological impacts of the ecolabel is probably the single most critical challenge for the future of the MSC. Product marketing will continue to be a major objective of certification and ecolabelling programmes, rather than directly creating environmental change. Even so, this will most likely have to be delivered in partnership with the more traditional measures for management of fisheries and aquaculture to develop and maintain credibility with consumers. The certification and ecolabelling programmes of the future will therefore need to be explicitly designed to engage directly with the existing fishery management policies and practices, and most likely on an issue-by-issue and a fishery-by-fishery basis, to promote improved environmental outcomes.

21.3 The motivations for certification 21.3.1 Voluntary assessment systems The motivations for fisheries to voluntarily seek to be certified and ecolabelled are many. In the MSC programme – the best current example of voluntary certification – motivation appears to have evolved through three clear phases: 1. The Unilever policy decision: To secure fish supplies and create a market perception of concern for environmental issues, Unilever actively adopted and promoted a sourcing policy to mainly purchase certified seafood. Unilever’s decision was founded on their judgement that they needed to secure resource allocations, and maintain market standing, or better, provide leadership. For fisheries to become certified in the transition phase where there was little direct market-place benefit, costs of the MSC certification process were covered by Unilever, wholesalers or by foundations, not by the fisheries themselves. 2. Major retailers choose certified seafood: Major retailers across Europe and the US recognised the early signs of emergence of a significant marketing tool and marketplace competition, and moved to develop and implement sourcing policies similar to those adopted earlier by Unilever (discussed in Chapter 20). 3. Keep up with the pack: In the third phase, yet to come, many more resellers will recognise the need to maintain market parity with the major players and adopt similar sourcing policies. Other companies, including investment sources such as banks and insurance companies, will treat the seafood certification issue as another form of corporate governance issue and adopt corporate social responsibility principles in relation to their investments and business ventures.

BLBK019-Ward

420

June 4, 2008

15:14

Seafood Ecolabelling

As these voluntary and market-based developments unfold and their uptake spreads, we expect that ecolabels will proliferate based (mainly) on purchaser–producer direct arrangements. The flexibility of fishery and aquaculture producers to ignore certification and ecolabelling will quickly be reduced, and inevitably, the great majority of seafood will carry some form of certification or ecolabel. We expect that, as the third phase unfolds, certification will become a normal part of the seafood business, although the sustainability standards will cover a much greater range than those applied in the present-day certification systems. This will not be an issue for consumers, because creating actual environmental change does not matter in the rapid proliferation phase of ecolabelling. Only after ecolabelling matures will competition amongst ecolabels become a significant feature of the marketplace, and this will include consumer confidence about the extent to which the competing ecolabels can demonstrate direct ecological improvements. While the involvement of large-scale fisheries in ecolabelling programmes is largely market driven, the community-based, small-scale and local fisheries may have a number of different reasons for entering into a voluntary certification or ecolabelling programme. One common reason is to demonstrate to the government regulators that their fishery is indeed well-managed, and have this verified by an external and independent process. Such support is usually sought to ensure that their fishery is treated favourably in any resource allocation debates or decisions. As was the case for the Baja lobster fishery (Chapter 12), the major benefits may also be in other areas of human development, such as better infrastructure provided by government. Case studies show that MSC certification can secure existing resource rights for very long periods (as in the South African hake fishery, Chapter 14), and so the ambitions of small fisheries (such as the Lakes and Coorong Fishery in South Australia, Chapter 15) to become MSC certified may be well motivated. A further important reason is one of community pride. Many small-scale fisheries are based on low technology, and although they may have been operating for many years, questions always arise about the need for better technology and improved harvests to maintain the appearance of being a modern and sustainable fishery. An independent assessment can be used to confirm that such a fishery is indeed well managed irrespective of gear types etc., and this can be demonstrated to other communities or fisheries within the region. Small fisheries may produce only limited product, and there may be no practical option for increasing production or securing price increases. As a result, the drivers for small-scale fisheries to become certified therefore may not directly relate to market incentives, but be driven more by nonmarket factors. As seafood certification and ecolabelling spreads, it seems likely that more small-scale fisheries will wish to become certified to secure some of these non-market benefits. The MSC system is not likely to be the certification system of choice for small-scale fisheries. The MSC has been accused of marginalising smallscale fisheries, and there are calls for it to be more open, transparent and inclusive – all attributes that the organisation itself currently considers it is demonstrating (Ponte 2007, Chapter 14).

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

15:14

Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade

421

21.3.2 Government assessment systems In the MSC certification process, the decision to submit for MSC assessment must be fully supported by all elements of the fishery concerned – the fishers, the processors, the distributors, the government manager/regulator and the various industry associations that may represent the interests of each of these groups. Typically, the government managers/regulators are not the main decision maker in this matter, and while they may provide passive support, the process of MSC assessment of a fishery will put the government agency under intense external scrutiny by the independent certifier, and this may represent a significant threat to the internal and external standing of the government agency concerned. Rarely are government agencies audited in such detail, and the established institutional culture is not usually receptive to external technical audit of the nature applied by the MSC programme. Reactions of government fishery managers to the presence of an external and independent audit range from passive support and tolerance through to active resistance. For example, in Australia’s Western Rock Lobster Fishery, the government managers and regulators were a co-client for the MSC assessment, although their role subsequently changed to being an information provider. In contrast, in the Alaska pollock fishery, after some unfavourable comments were made by the independent certifier, the government manager and regulator actively resisted the MSC assessment process by instructing government officers not to cooperate with the assessment team. Governments typically feel they have control, and even in situations where there are quota and other forms of fishery rights that may be delegated to the industry to manage, governments take the view that the management of fisheries is their responsibility and independent certification is welcome, provided that it agrees and confirms the government’s successful management, achievements and objectives. Governments have therefore typically moved to establish their own form of certification and government-jurisdiction ecolabelling as a counter-measure against the rigours of private sector certification initiatives and to provide a national minimum standard for fisheries performance. However, the ‘gold-star’ ecological standard cannot be achieved by government systems of certification, because they cannot be seen to have a major impact on existing markets, employment and profits while they seek to improve standards. Government systems of certification are generally designed with performance benchmarks that almost all fisheries within their jurisdiction can meet, isolating only the worst of performers. The US government has its own dolphin-safe ecolabel (the National Marine Fisheries Service dolphin-safe ecolabel; see Chapter 1). The Japan Fisheries Association launched Japan’s first seafood ecolabelling system in 2007 – ‘Marine Eco-label Japan’ – ‘promoted by all stake holders, including organizations and companies related to seafood production and distribution, as well as academia and the Japanese government’s Fisheries Agency’ (Isaribi 2007). Iceland and Norway, two of the world’s seafood superpowers, in addition to embracing the MSC ecolabel

BLBK019-Ward

422

June 4, 2008

15:14

Seafood Ecolabelling

are considering developing their own national certification and ecolabel systems (DiPietro 2007). These government-backed certification and ecolabelling systems (including the Australian government’s certification system, Chapter 1) are most closely akin to self-assessment systems. However, they may be effective for driving some environmental change in the medium term purely because they express a government policy position in an operational context for all fisheries under their jurisdiction, and this in itself may act as an agent for change. We understand that the Australian government’s certification system may be upgraded in 2008 to an ecolabel.

21.4 Quality of the standard In certification and ecolabelling systems, standards need to be clear and explicit, and they need to have clearly defined benchmarks embedded that are either quantifiable or otherwise verified in a way that is robust to uncertainties and is agreed with all parties. There is no simple single definition for a sustainability standard in any form of fishing or aquaculture, so each certification or ecolabelling initiative must therefore define clearly what it means by sustainability, or sustainable management, or sustainable seafood, or exactly what the standard comprises. The language of sustainability is catchy but can be easily abused. In the contemporary idiom, there are many uses of the word ‘sustainable’ and its derivations (such as ‘sustainable housing’), and although such language is obviously fashionable and attractive for marketing purposes, the precise meaning is not clear. In seafood certification, there is a strong case that can be made for a fixed and explicit standard which is pre-defined in relation to specific issues of technical and public concern, and against which verification can be easily conducted. Then the key issue of quality becomes exactly where to put the ‘sustainability bar’ in terms of what type and extent of environmental damage will be considered to be ‘sustainable’. This ‘setting the bar’ becomes a matter of strategic decision made by the standard owner based on the overall costs and benefits and the level of acceptability to consumers. Irrespective of where the bar is set, independent third-party verification is the only robust way of deciding if a venture complies or not with the standard. For this to work, it is vital that the standard be fixed, not flexible, so that certifiers are not subject to lobbying pressure and influence from vested interests. It also depends on the use of transparent and accountable verification systems and the consistent and authoritative application of the verification rules by the standard owner. The final determinant of the quality of a standard is the extent to which beneficial environmental change occurs as a result of implementing the certification and ecolabelling programme. Numbers of labelled products, countries in which they are sold, number of certified fisheries, or tonnage of certified fish sold mean

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

15:14

Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade

423

little if the standard is set at a low level. While such measures are good indicators of market penetration, none of these provide consumers with the assurance that their purchase of an ecolabelled product is actually going to be better for the ocean ecosystems or fish stocks (Rotherham 2005). However, at this stage, none of the current certification or ecolabelling programmes widely advertise or promote the successes of ecolabelling in terms of achieving better fish stocks or improvements to ocean ecosystems. In the marketplace of the future, informed seafood consumers and opinion leaders will demand to be better informed about the various ecological issues and expect to be provided with robust information about the extent to which the various forms of certification, ecolabelling and product endorsement actually support improved ocean ecosystems and fish stocks. The crucial information will revolve around the type and extent of environmental improvements that the ecolabel or certification system has actually caused, either directly or indirectly, through the application of the sustainability standard.

21.5 The business of certification 21.5.1 Business models The ‘business model’ of a certification and ecolabelling programme refers to the way in which the processes of the programme are arranged and managed, including the way in which the various internal financial systems operate. In financial terms, some ecolabelling programmes are maintained and supported by governments (such as the Blue Angel – a successful ecolabel operating in Europe), while others (MSC, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)) are more complex and supported by donations, grants and small amounts of money generated from licensing of the ecolabel. The ‘business model’ also refers to the way in which the various structures within the programme operate and their internal and external relationships. In the MSC programme, certifiers engage in contractual arrangements with fishery clients to undertake various parts of the pre- and full assessment process, including surveillance audits. These contracts are commercially confidential, and both the terms of the contract and the price are normally not disclosed to the MSC or made public. This is a specific element of the MSC programme designed to enhance competition amongst certifiers and to keep costs of assessments down. Unfortunately, this approach may also have an impact on the quality of assessments. Assembling an expert team of international standing for a detailed MSC assessment is expensive, and it is cheaper to hire local specialists and less-skilled experts to fill the assessment team role. Certifiers competing on price to sign up fishery clients may be very tempted to use less-experienced and cheaper assessment teams, leading to low-quality assessments.

BLBK019-Ward

424

June 4, 2008

15:14

Seafood Ecolabelling

21.5.2 The price In the MSC programme, fishery clients are mainly interested in getting a ‘pass’, and the combination of a flexible standard and lack of cost guidance for the MSC assessment and verification process has offered both the opportunity and the incentive for fishery clients to go ‘certifier shopping’. This is a matter of some risk for clients, but they usually make a judgement based on the track record of the certifiers that are competing for fishery assessment contracts to ensure that the quality of the assessment process will be adequate to safely secure a ‘pass’. When there is a range of certifiers with established track records, this may be a healthy component of the MSC programme, helping to keep the cost of certification down. But at present, and possibly for a number of more years, there are only two certification companies that have certified more than a single fishery in the MSC programme, and so the choices are very limited. Given the limited expertise base of some certifiers at this time, the very intensive and aggressive negotiations between certifiers and fishery clients may have achieved cheaper certification, but at the cost of sacrificing the quality and timeframes of some MSC assessments.

21.5.3 Lobbying High-quality certification and ecolabelling systems for seafood need to have business models that do not permit, and indeed have active safeguards against, the use of well-funded lobbying to influence the outcomes of assessments and the award of ecolabels. Such activities shift the burden of proof onto the less-capable stakeholders to prove their case. Well-funded lobbying may even turn around the precautionary approach to data gaps and risks that would normally be used in assessments by turning the focus onto specific individual issues, and leveraging the final outcome of an assessment on a high-profile but perhaps environmentally minor point of contention. While such matters can be dealt with effectively where there is a fixed standard and a high quality of expert judgement within an assessment, it can be very difficult to deal with in a publicity campaign context, and eventually, certifiers and the standard owner may find this situation difficult to reconcile and may be forced to find acceptable compromises.

21.5.4 Funding base A number of certification, ecolabelling and product recommendation systems currently rely on short-term funds for their operation (from grant programmes), and such costs are not passed on to seafood consumers. These programmes may have a limited future, as funding priorities in granting programmes change. Only those programmes with a well-developed business model underlying their operations could be considered to have a secure financial base and be potentially developing into mainstream seafood certification systems.

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

15:14

Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade

425

21.5.5 Future business models The MSC has secured good market penetration for products but has failed to achieve significant fish stock or ecological benefits because of the following four key weaknesses in its overall business model:

r r r r

the lack of fixed and explicit standards; the lack of a direct link between the standard and improvements; the lack of price/cost guidance for assessments; and limited overview applied from the MSC through its procedures for accreditation and review of certifiers.

This has led to the situation where the MSC standard is open to interpretation by the certifier, which is then open to influence from lobby group interests and (potentially) commercial interests. As the MSC programme matures, the current business model will need to be significantly changed to resolve these weaknesses. Changes needed include the adoption of a standard that is fixed, explicit and clear, with measurable criteria for certifiers to use in verification; an increase in the quality control imposed on certifiers to ensure they use equivalent forms of interpretation of the MSC standard and achieve comparable outcomes; and establishment of a cost benchmark for fishery assessments based on the components of pre-assessment, full assessment and annual compliance audits. These issues apply equally to all other forms of certification that use a business model similar to that of the MSC.

21.6 The costs and benefits of pre-assessment As fisheries and aquaculture ventures explore the prospect of acquiring a certification or ecolabel, they consider all the risks to which their operation may become exposed. This will include (usually) making public and bringing into focus many things about the venture that have either not previously been exposed or may not have been considered in detail in a way that may be negative for the business. These potential risks and ‘downsides’ have to be evaluated in the context of short- and long-term benefits that may accrue from a successful acquisition of the certification or ecolabel. This period of exploration of the idea of becoming certified is known as the pre-assessment and can involve:

r informal discussion and intelligence gathering at industry forums, seafood shows and technical conferences about experiences with certification of various types;

r research on the experiences of industry observers, market analysts and government agency officials;

r assessing the possible market responses to certification, including new markets and pricing issues;

BLBK019-Ward

426

June 4, 2008

15:14

Seafood Ecolabelling

r predicting the prospects of a successful certification, given the current performance level of the fishery or aquaculture venture and the extent to which the fishery can be bound to a common set of standards and goals; r an indicative, or informal, assessment using in-house or independent technical experts; and r a formal pre-assessment such as that of the MSC programme, which specifies a number of matters to be considered prior to submitting for a full assessment. These steps can take some considerable time and resources, and if there is a sustained commitment to proceed, then this process may also involve the synthesis and analysis of data in preparing a detailed in-house evaluation. In the MSC programme, there are substantial requirements for data and technical information to be prepared for a full assessment, and this can also take considerable time and money. The MSC process is based on data and evidence supplied to the assessment team, and this must be assembled and presented by the venture being assessed (or by stakeholders where evidence is sought from outside the venture). Much of this work can be done well in advance of an assessment process to minimise costs and expedite the certification. Such a process of preparation also allows ventures to more accurately determine the likelihood of certification success, and increases their chances of certification, because they can provide a more comprehensive base of structured information into the assessment process.

21.7 Assessment and certification – the processes 21.7.1 Stakeholder engagement Stakeholders (environmental NGOs, fishers, government agencies, etc.) must be able to fully and freely engage in all steps of a seafood certification process if it is to be considered to reasonably reflect community norms of sustainability. This includes definition of the standards, assessment of the fishery/venture, review of the outcome including appeals, and compliance with any corrective actions imposed during the lifetime of an ecolabel. In the MSC programme, for example, the full engagement of NGOs was always considered to be vital by Unilever to ensure the broader acceptability of the process and the outcomes. This is particularly difficult when the costs of engagement are high (which is the case for almost all fisheries certifications) and when some participants cannot afford to become heavily engaged. However, successful ecolabelling initiatives in other sectors feature participation of all groups of stakeholders and particularly in standard setting and verification procedures.

21.7.2 Technical inputs Certification and ecolabelling systems are based on technical knowledge and data, with the most robust systems requiring substantial levels of technical expertise. In

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

15:14

Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade

427

most countries it is not likely that genuinely independent and high-quality technical expertise and knowledge can be secured through the use of local specialists. This is because most capture fisheries are managed by governments, which also control the careers and future of most of the technical specialists who have the most comprehensive knowledge of the local fisheries. Whilst the use of local expertise can be important, it should be taken in the context of a broader normalisation of knowledge, data and evidence, such as would usually only be available through the use of experts from other jurisdictions (and typically other countries). Use of only local experts to assess a fishery will normally expose the assessment systems to the possibility of motivational bias, and this may be difficult to either detect or correct. The recent proposal to award an MSC certification to two fisheries in Japan (the snow crab and flathead flounder fisheries; www.msc.org) without any conditions has been based on assessment by a team of local experts. The two fisheries scored high on the environmental criteria, with judgements favouring the fishery despite the apparent lack of data and knowledge about such impacts in both fisheries. Such outcomes also expose the Achilles’ heel of a flexible standard: many different technical interpretations of the sustainability standard will be approved by the standard owner, particularly if there are no public objections to force an independent evaluation of the quality of the assessment process or the outcomes. The reduced standards that seem likely to be accepted for these Japanese fisheries may be interpreted as a first step by the MSC to bring Asian fisheries into the programme, but they also bring into question the motivations and the control systems of the MSC programme. The lack of support in Asia for certification and ecolabelling programs has been identified as limitation of the overall ecolabelling system for seafood (Jacquet & Pauly 2007). To further help address this deficiency, the MSC has opened an office in Japan to promote the concept of MSC-labelled products. Recently, a Hong Kong retailer (ThreeSixty) released a number of MSC-labelled products for the China market, building on the growing interest in MSC-labelled products in Japan.

21.8 Environmental monitoring Fishing and aquaculture systems are about generating wealth. Monitoring programmes may be used in various ways in fisheries management to assist with the achievement of that objective, and there is a clear role for industry and independent monitoring in situations where there may be local or region-wide efficiency gains to be made and hence higher financial returns to fishing or aquaculture ventures. In contrast, where monitoring is required to document trends or activities that are more likely to result in a penalty being applied to the venture (such as monitoring to ensure that there is no fishing in closed areas, no breach of mesh size or failing to observe industry-required practices), then industry self-monitoring is less likely either to be tolerated or to be able to effectively and independently used to document such breaches.

BLBK019-Ward

428

June 4, 2008

15:14

Seafood Ecolabelling

In certification systems, the need to have independent observers monitor and report on environmental issues is omnipresent. For example, how could a fishery without independent at-sea observers be certified as complying with the MSC standard if the fish in the landed product cannot be uniquely identified to species? Or how could a fishery be certified as having no significant interactions with important species of seabirds, or marine mammals that may be at risk from fishery impacts, without independent at-sea observers? The incentives for fishers to misreport such matters can be substantial, and independent verification is a critical component of any credible certification system. The need for independent and verified observer monitoring of bycatch is especially crucial for fisheries or aquaculture ventures that may have a legally permitted interaction or bycatch with rare or endangered species. Observer systems must be independent, cover robust statistical samples of the fleet, select vessels or operations at random, be reported publicly, and be linked to the stock assessment and quota/effort constraints system. Inadequate monitoring systems lead to incorrect conclusions about the level and significance of bycatch issues. The design of such monitoring and observer systems is crucial. For example, voluntary programmes of involvement in monitoring are of highly dubious value. Vessels that volunteer to take observers on-board will be those that feel they are already in compliance with rules. Those that do not volunteer are likely to be those that either do not wish to comply with rules about bycatch or do not want to incur the cost of compliance by changing their fishing operations (to avoid bycatch) for the times they are under observation. The observer effect (when observers are on-board, fishing vessels change their practices to be compliant with rules) is measurable through various independent systems of verification, including vessel profiling, where the fishery characteristics of a vessel (trip catch, area of fishing, level of reported bycatch, etc) are compared between observed and non-observed trips. Other means of verification include dockside surveys and telephone surveys of deck or factory staff, who may not have the same level of incentive to misreport bycatch or to obscure compliance issues. All these cost money and take time to verify, but certification and compliance systems that either do not have such a system built into their own processes, or do not require that such systems are conducted within the fishery venture being assessed, cannot purport to provide consumers with reliable information about fishery impacts.

21.9 Product recommendations and buying guides Certification and ecolabelling provides a clear signal to consumers about the value of their purchasing power and how they may express this to support more ecologically sustainable products. Product recommendations and buying guides also provide consumers with advice about products, but presented in a different form. If consumers perceive that a benefit can be conferred through their purchasing

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

15:14

Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade

429

decisions, and if this is also perceived by resellers, then buying guides and product recommendations will be effective if mainly targeted at the seafood buyers, wholesalers and other intermediaries such as chefs. However, if consumers do not perceive that a benefit will actually be conferred through their selective choice of recommended products, then the market incentive will be diminished and resellers promoting certified or recommended products will receive little benefit. Seafood procurement and restaurant programmes using the procurement and buying guide approaches, such as the language of ‘best choice’, therefore actually depend on the same consumers, the same level of awareness and the same market incentive as that of the certification and ecolabelling programmes. Some observers (e.g. Gulbrandsen 2006) consider that certification and ecolabelling has been driven primarily by major corporations, major NGOs and governments, and not by consumers. While these organisations may be implementing or promoting the certification, all forms of certification, ecolabelling, product recommendation and buying guides that trade the sustainability message must be underpinned by the market-based incentive created through consumers purchasing choices. While the differences between these various types of programmes include the form of consumer advice delivered, the types of organisations promoting them, the messages and delivery media, and the different parts of the seafood supply chain targeted, the end result is intended to be the same – the creation of leverage to improve the ecological sustainability of fishery and aquaculture practices by reducing the production of seafood that has greater ecological impacts than that of alternative products. Consumers who are not well educated about the various programmes or the issues of seafood sustainability may be confused by the different messages. Such confusion amongst messages in the market may be counter-productive, and this could be exploited by less scrupulous players seeking to establish ecolabels or product recommendations that are weak and provide no basis for improving fishery practices. In the absence of a government-established minimum standard, programmes such as dolphin-safe that have widespread and diverse ecolabels, not all of which are backed by readily available standards and verification systems, may mislead consumers and falsely remove the market-based incentive because they remove the element of purchasing choice (when all products are labelled). However, it is clear that all forms of these programmes rely on the same fundamental driver – the incentive created through the ready availability in the same market of equivalent products that carry ecolabels or product recommendations alongside products that may carry less appeal for the consumer. When the market is saturated with labels and product recommendations on most of the equivalent and competing products, the incentive is diminished or extinguished, and this reinforces the role of regulatory action to maintain a minimum standard of environmental performance, no matter what form of certification system applies. Eventually, across all these issues and types of product guides and recommendations, consumers can only rely on the quality of the standard underpinning the

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

430

15:14

Seafood Ecolabelling

recommendations, and where this is unclear or the consumers do not wish to check the verification, then they will rely almost exclusively on the standing and quality of the organisation that promotes and endorses the certification ‘brand’ (the standard owner). For buying guides and product recommendations, the standing of the ‘brand’ may be the key factor in driving market appeal to discerning consumers when the marketplace becomes saturated with claims of ecological sustainability.

21.10 The evolutionary path As certification and ecolabelling begins to mature in the seafood sector, it will most likely follow the history of other ecolabelling systems as follows:

r Competing ecolabels will be developed and promoted, specifically addressing

r r r

r

weaknesses (or strengths) of a benchmark ‘gold-star’ programme, for a quicker certification at a cheaper price and with lower maintenance requirements. Those competing labels will be based on different standards, and possibly apply to a subset of the seafood products and regions, where specific points of product differentiation can be developed and applied for market advantage. Individual purchaser–provider agreements and standards will arise (developed and applied by individual resellers, such as store labels). Procurement standards will be developed and applied by resellers as a group to suit specific regional market demands/demographics (such as GLOBALGAP, Chapter 6). Industry-wide standards will be developed to cover sustainability combined with other food issues such as safety and quality, and will compete with ecolabels and certified seafood products (to meet the competition with non-seafood products and emerging government regulation issues). National government sustainability standards will be further developed to meet international requirements and nascent global standards (such as those of FAO, Chapter 3) and to embed developing national expectations about minimum performance standards.

During the maturing process, there will be an increasing coalescing of both supporters and opponents to specific fishery outcomes and design strengths and weaknesses in the specific ecolabelling programmes. Supporters may even evolve into organisations themselves and operate to secure continued support within the seafood industry to try to maintain established market benefits and secure further benefits in the future. The opponents may become better organised and try to secure major changes in certification systems, and move to build or support alternative and competing ecolabels that better serve their interests and constituencies. For seafood certification and ecolabelling programmes with a global perspective, there is an inevitable trade-off that has to be achieved between inclusion of more fisheries into the programme and the level of environmental protection encoded

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

15:14

Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade

431

into the standard. The tension is between the imperative to certify large numbers of fisheries as a mechanism to rapidly create the market pull across many fisheries and the opportunity to create a ‘gold-star’ benchmark for ecologically sustainable fishing that could only ever be achieved by a small proportion of the world’s fisheries but delivers real environmental change. The MSC programme has taken the broad coverage approach rather than the high standard approach. In establishing and delivering this balance, the MSC has missed the opportunity to create the ‘gold-star’ ecological standard in fisheries certification. It now seems that both the voluntary assessment and public sector (government) approaches stand to deliver a broad base of certification designed to certify the majority of fisheries. As a model for delivering broad-based incremental environmental improvements, such approaches are eminently defendable and supportable, but they leave vacant the question of the ‘gold-star’ ecological standard. This vacant territory may open the opportunity for competing programmes to develop, creating yet another competitive element that will assist to drive environmental improvements in seafood production, but it could also serve to create even further confusion for consumers. Developing countries are well aware of the issues surrounding seafood certification, and the possible benefits, but they also have imperatives in food security that are not similarly faced by developed nations in the seafood sector. Given that creating environmental improvements may be only one of many factors that have high priority in developing countries, it may become important for regional certification systems of the future to develop an equivalent ‘sustainability standard’ that can be applied in developing nations. This means that effectively the standard for developing nations should be different. The most practical response to this matter is likely to be the development of new certification and ecolabel systems that deal appropriately with the issues of developing nations, such as setting acceptable environmental benchmarks and providing for fair trade and equitable social outcomes. This would provide relevant certification business models that can be implemented in developing nations. The MSC ecolabel, like the FSC label upon which it is closely modelled, is a narrow form of product recommendation compared to ecolabels in many other sectors. The continuing development of seafood ecolabels is likely to see, as in the other sectors, an amalgamation of issues, bringing a range of matters within the ambit of broader product recommendations aimed directly at price, food safety and environment-conscious consumers. This is also likely to be a more prominent development path if there are increasing calls (such as from Rotherham 2005) for the more explicit linking of ecolabels to clear environmental benefits. Contemporary ecolabelling initiatives, including the FSC and the MSC, are singled out (Rotherham 2005) for their lack of demonstrated environmental benefits (whilst acknowledging that such benefits may be hard to show because they often take time to express ecologically and then be detected in measurement systems). Calls for greater ecological benefits to be demonstrated are actually unlikely to lead to

BLBK019-Ward

432

June 4, 2008

15:14

Seafood Ecolabelling

broad-scale labels like the MSC becoming more focused on delivering ecological benefits because the costs of certification to such standards will only be acceptable to the largest and most profitable fisheries. It is more likely that such factors will be dealt with by finer-scale issue-based ecolabels that will be developed to target specific environmental issues.

21.11 Certification and ecolabelling systems of the future As a result of the issues with the contemporary programmes outlined above, we expect that the successful voluntary seafood certification and ecolabelling programmes of the future will be of two main types: (i) ecolabels that are based on direct engagement between producer and reseller (such as wholesalers, large retailers, restaurants, etc.) where branding and organisational standing is the key feature of the market; and (ii) regional and issue-based ecolabels that are short lived (possibly a few years) and focus specifically on environmental issues of high consumer concern. The majority of seafood ecolabels of the future will be those of type (i) above, based on direct sourcing arrangements – store labels, major procurement group labels, and other such producer-reseller labels – reflecting much closer links and relationships between sources and consumers (Kaiser & Edwards-Jones 2006). In addition to sustainability matters, these labels will also probably cover a range of other issues of importance to consumers, such as nutrition and food safety, all set in the context of industry-wide standards (such as increasingly the case with store labels, organic, GLOBALGAP and country-of-origin systems). These systems will be driven by marketing interests primarily, and while they will portray a flavour of environmental concern and sustainability, and will not be opposed to such matters, their primary objective will be to maintain markets, prices and profits, not the ecosystems or fish stocks. Their main role in sustainability issues will probably be to contribute to consumer awareness and to work in partnership with the more traditional fishery management systems of governments and communities to secure gradual improvements in ecological sustainability. The regional and issue-based labels of type (ii) above will probably be fewer in number, but they may belong to a family of ecolabels, or sit within a global and generic sustainability programme or a global organisation. They will be based on making direct ecological achievements and publicising the achievements to reassure consumers that their discretionary purchasing choices are working to benefit the fish stocks and the ocean ecosystems. Many of these ecolabels we expect will be directly targeted for regional markets based on regional variations of standards, including developing country and small-scale fishery and aquaculture ventures, not truly global standards even though they may be part of a broader global certification programme.

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

15:14

Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade

433

We also expect that both types of certification and ecolabels will increasingly include more information on traceability, also known as provenance and chainof-custody, so that consumers can be informed about the country and locality of origin of the products they choose. They may also move to a more tiered ranking approach to certification (such as a set of bronze, silver, gold ranks; Kaiser & Edwards-Jones 2006) rather than a pass/fail system (such as the current MSC system). In some regions, as certification of type (i) begins to become more widespread, the ecological sustainability aspects will probably be absorbed into larger promotional programmes for seafood that are currently being developed around the world. For example, in Australia there are major new programmes to promote seafood for its health benefits and to enhance profitability and employment – the Australian Seafood Cooperative Research Centre (www. seafoodcrc.com) and Seafood Experience Australia (www.seafoodpromotions.com). It does not take much imagination to see ecological sustainability, which is not currently mentioned in the Australian initiatives, being folded into such programmes to provide an integrated seafood certification system across all seafood issues in the marketplace. The tension between national government and private certification systems will be limited, because we expect that although governments will more forcefully express a role in certification, consistent with FAO guidance, as the voluntary systems increase in market relevance the primary role for governments will be to place the ‘floor’ into minimum standards of performance. The leadership in sustainability standards will probably always be maintained by the voluntary systems of certification, provided they can be agile and responsive to new issues and consumer concerns. In the present development phase of seafood certification and ecolabelling systems, with rapid growth of the concept and uptake by resellers, the links to creation of environmental improvements are being lost amongst the rush to achieve market penetration and advantage. However, demonstrating environmental improvements linked to certification will nonetheless continue to build as an issue for interest groups and consumers, and at some time in the not-too-distant future, this will become a driver for increased competition amongst certification and ecolabel programmes. Ultimately, this may lead to increasing standards that will become the norm for fishery and aquaculture ventures, and continue to keep pace with community expectations. However, in the shorter term (next decade), there will probably be a rise in the number of issue-based ecolabels targeting specific issues of relevance to a modest base of fisheries, aquaculture ventures and consumers. Such certification systems will serve to tackle specific issues that have attracted consumer attention within a local region and where local market traction can be achieved through product and region-specific certification, ecolabelling or product recommendations. The present-day embryonic phase of seafood certification and ecolabelling may therefore be best seen as creating the institutional structures and gradually

BLBK019-Ward

434

June 4, 2008

15:14

Seafood Ecolabelling

developing consumer awareness and engagement that will provide for more effective voluntary and government programmes of the future. Consumers will continue to expect governments to play the ‘gatekeeper’ role as stewards of their ocean resources, setting minimum standards to be achieved by all ventures. As a result, voluntary certification systems may work in partnership with, but are unlikely ever to be a major substitute for, the more comprehensive systems of national governance and international guidance needed to provide for the long-term ecological sustainability of the fisheries and aquaculture resources of the world’s oceans. However, the one prediction we can make with certainty about seafood ecolabelling is that there will be major changes over the next decade. The ecolabelling schemes of today will be unrecognisable in 10 years time. For example, in this last decade the MSC has moved from its inception as a programme to reward sustainable fisheries and provide leadership to other fisheries aspiring to ecological sustainability and MSC certification, to adopt a new set of mixed objectives that include safeguarding the livelihoods of fishers. Whether such objectives are feasible and achievable, and will provide the MSC with an appropriate future as an ecolabelling programme, remains in the hands of consumers worldwide. However, we expect that the MSC ecolabel will continue to evolve and be a force in seafood marketing for many years to come, even though it appears only able to directly create a very limited suite of real ecological improvements in fish stocks and ocean ecosystems. Like other voluntary ecolabels, the MSC programme will continue to rely on government regulatory programmes to create real improvements in the management of fish stocks and ecological sustainability.

Acknowledgements These views and opinions have developed and crystallised through many extensive discussions with Dr Chet Chaffee, of Scientific Certification Systems, California, and several of our other colleagues with whom we have worked on various MSC fishery certifications. Annette Green, of Greenward Consulting, Perth, has greatly assisted us to clarify our thinking and expression in this chapter. We are pleased to acknowledge their inputs, ideas and criticisms, although the synthesis above is solely our own.

References Beddington, J.R., Agnew, D.J. & Clark, C.W. (2007) Current problems in the management of marine fisheries. Science, 316, 1713–1716. Brown, J. (2005) An account of the dolphin-safe tuna issue in the UK. Marine Policy, 29, 39–46. Christie, D. (2007a) Food industry questions Asda’s motives over. Sunday Herald (Scotland), 16 March 2007. Available at: http://www.sundayherald.com/search/display.

BLBK019-Ward

June 4, 2008

15:14

Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade

435

var.1201138.0.food industry questions asdas motives over.php [accessed on 28 February 2008]. Christie, D. (2007b) Asda U-turn on sale of monkfish after ban campaign. Sunday Herald (Scotland), 3 June 2007. Available at: http://www.sundayherald.com/search/display. var.1443898.0.asda uturn on sale of monkfish after ban campaign.php [accessed on 28 February 2008]. DiPietro, B. (2007) Norway ‘about face’ over MSC label. ProWest: Western Australia’s Professional Fishing Industry Magazine, May/June 2007, p. 18. Gerrodette, T. & Forcada, J. (2005) Non-recovery of two spotted and spinner dolphin populations in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 291, 1–21. Gulbrandsen, L.H. (2006) Creating markets for eco-labelling: are consumers insignificant? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 477–489. Hassell, J. (2005) A review of existing certification impact evaluation methodologies, 30 pp. R049 Public Report. ISEAL Alliance, Oxford, UK. Isaribi (2007). MEL Japan, Japan’s first ecolabelling system to be introduced this year. Isaribi, 55, August 2007, p. 2. Jacquet, J.L. & Pauly, D. (2007) The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries. Marine Policy, 31, 308–313. Kaiser, M.J. & Edwards-Jones, G. (2006) The role of ecolabeling in fisheries management and conservation. Conservation Biology, 20, 392–398. Muller, E. (2002) Environmental Labelling, Innovation and the Toolbox of Environmental Policy, Lessons Learned from the German Blue Angel Program, 38 pp. Federation of German Consumer Organisations, Berlin, Germany. Available at: http://www.blauerengel.de/downloads/EDDA-Mueller-Papier.pdf [accessed on 19 February 2008] . Ponte, S. (2007) Being open, transparent, inclusive. Samudra, 46, March 2007, 3–8. Pryke, J. (2007) Give a man a fish. Seafood International, June 2007, p. 10. Rotherham, T. (2005) The Trade and Environmental Effects of Ecolabels: Assessment and Response. UNEP, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.unep.ch/etb/ publications/Ecolabelpap141005f.pdf [accessed on 28 February 2008]. UNEP (2006) Class of 2006: Industry Report Cards on Environment and Social Responsibility, 144 pp. UNEP, Paris, France. Available at: www.unep.fr/outreach/csd14/docs/ Class of 2006 low res.pdf[accessed on 28 February 2008]. Urch, M. (2003) Consumers don’t buy conservation (Editorial). Seafood International, October 2003, p. 3. Ward, T.J. (2008) Barriers to biodiversity conservation in marine fishery certification. Fish and Fisheries, 9, 169–177.

BLBK019-Ward

June 27, 2008

21:21

Index

accreditation, 14, 20, 29, 67, 68, 74–78, 87, 88, 127, 136, 139, 140, 196, 197, 242, 276, 294, 295, 396, 425 body, 76, 78, 140 high costs, 67 purpose, 76 system, 67, 197 advertising, 4, 10, 40, 78, 124, 216, 384 Aeon, 93, 96, 199, 281 Africa, 94, 100, 136, 243, 275, 288–304, 311, 318 Ahold, 12–14, 26, 136, 141, 152, 157, 199, 214, 323, 324, 335, 336, 409 Alaska pollock, 13, 14, 24, 85, 93, 269–285, 411, 412, 414, 421 concerns with the MSC assessment, 275–279 fishery, 269, 271 MSC assessment, 273–278 the MSC reform agenda, 281–285 problems with scoring, 276 reviews critical of the MSC, 284 retroactive application of new rules, 278 Alaska salmon, 1, 10, 13, 27, 93, 249, 291 Aldi, 96 ammonia, 122 animal protein, 81, 143 animal welfare, 113, 114, 124 antibiotics, 29, 111, 118, 123, 125, 130, 413 appeals, 74, 78, 248, 249, 279, 426 aquaculture certification challenges, 128 closed-system, 397 decision-ranking tool, 327, 328, 330 facilities, 8, 12, 20, 41, 42, 47, 71, 115–127, 212, 323–327, 330, 332,

343, 349, 350, 354–358, 360, 413, 414 farm, 5, 122, 141 feed, 102 full-cycle, 162 impacts of, 108 industries, 8, 49, 106–131, 336, 351, 390 intensive, 397 method, 162, 390, 396 open-ocean, 54 open-system, 397 organic, 115 practice, 6, 55, 56, 113, 114, 124, 126, 136, 141, 176, 398, 429 production, 54, 55, 73, 102, 130, 216, 390, 392, 394, 397 products, 6, 53–55, 73, 102, 114, 119–130, 197, 216, 390–397 salmon, 135, 141 salmon standard, 141 seacage, 396, 397, 399 shrimp, 39, 113 standard, 118, 120, 176 sustainability, 121 sustainable, 47, 55, 107, 108, 357, 360 system, 106, 107, 120, 212, 221, 241, 396, 397, 427 tropical, 112 venture, 2, 4, 6, 20, 23, 211–237, 425–428, 432, 433 Asda, 95 Asia, 28, 29, 100, 116–131, 136, 149, 159, 161–181, 189, 197, 243, 260, 281, 427 assessment baseline, 319 chain-of-custody, 16, 293

SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice Edited by Trevor Ward and Bruce Phillips © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-16266-1

437

BLBK019-Ward

438

June 27, 2008

21:21

Index

assessment (cont.) compliance, 4, 5, 10, 12, 21, 23 conformity, 68, 76, 78, 140 cost, 88, 285, 293, 423 ecological, 237 elements, 222 failure, 223 framework, 212 independent, 14, 23, 85, 87, 389, 420 low quality, 423 model, 249, 251, 272 MSC, 24, 92–100, 236, 256, 257, 259, 263, 273–278, 281, 284, 288, 297, 307, 316, 320, 368, 421–424 outcome, 217, 232–234, 327 procedure, 14, 242, 251 process, 4, 12, 14, 20, 23, 88–102, 216, 247, 253, 264, 267, 269, 273–285, 313, 423–427 report, 91, 251, 253, 278, 393 resource, 175, 180 self-assessment, 5, 12, 14, 23, 196, 232, 417, 422 standard, 224 stock, 15, 70, 74, 89, 229, 252, 272, 277, 295, 300, 313, 326, 329, 371–382, 428 team, 88, 89, 233, 248–256, 274, 277, 279, 289, 292–300, 368, 421–426 third-party, 5, 6 tree, 89, 91, 98 voluntary, 431 Atlantic salmon, 34, 112, 134, 135, 363, 394 audit, 12, 61, 65, 77, 78, 85, 113–125, 136, 276, 292, 295, 401, 421 mock, 127 Australia, 1–33, 59, 84–93, 134, 154, 162–178, 195–200, 217–236, 249, 300, 316, 381, 389–402, 420, 433 Australian Marine Conservation Society, 389–401 3 Step Pocket Guide, 390, 393, 398

Baja California lobster, 85, 94, 259–266, 314–319 benefits of certification, 266, 317 fishing gear, 259 management system, 261 MSC assessment, 263 reason certification was sought, 263 situation since certification, 266 Bangladesh, 114, 128 Belize, 128 beluga sturgeon, 150 benthic impacts, 134, 251, 257, 331 best management practice (BMP), 111, 336 biodiversity conservation, 7 Blue Angel, 24, 25, 26, 423 Blue Ocean Institute, 23, 151, 200, 326, 334, 343, 354, 405 Bon Appetit magazine, 148 Brazil, 38, 128, 195, 290, 315, 319, 408 Brunei, 162 Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS), 389 business strategies, 207 business-to-business dialogue, 151 business case, 87 vertically integrated structure, 116, 124 business structure vertically integrated, 116 bycatch action plan, 221, 224 birds, 94, 223, 250 toothfish fishery, 94 dolphins, 17, 416 policy, 299 protected species, 23, 223, 229, 371

Cambodia, 162 Canada, 24, 86, 134, 135, 153, 159, 200, 210, 346, 402, 403–410 Carrefour, 35, 114 catch documentation, 192, 257 Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS), 192 catch rates, 81, 241 caviar, 150, 195, 196 certification, 31, 35, 109, 110, 124, 254

BLBK019-Ward

June 27, 2008

21:21

Index

chain-of-custody, 16, 52, 167, 289, 290, 293, 294, 298 charismatic megafauna, 149 chef, 29, 349, 398, 405 chemicals, 111, 123, 126, 130, 141, 331 Chile, 35, 115, 134, 135, 197, 298 China, 162–164, 188, 214, 281, 427 chloramphenicol, 130 Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators (COLTO), 194 Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR), 153 cod, 13, 14, 42–53, 82–92, 144, 210, 271, 342, 351, 376, 380, 403–414 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, 60–73, 119, 169–173, 287, 295, 408 commercial outreach, 92, 102 Comunidad y Biodiversidad (COBI), 263–267, 313, 319 community involvement small-scale fisheries, 307 Compass Group North America, 152, 360, 410 compliance assessment, 4–23 cost, 428 costs, 9, 178 criteria, 125, 137, 140 measurement, 180 monitoring, 300 concerned citizens, 147 consensus international, 64 conservation community, 84, 145–156, 324–337, 342–355, 403–410 concern, 358, 394–396 organisation, 30, 59, 62, 83, 151–159, 161, 288, 324–337, 340–361, 392, 404, 406 policy, 322 reef, 183, 184 science, 356 species, 213 values, 344 wildlife, 195

439

consumer appeal, 5, 10, 215 Asian, 28 awareness, 95, 97, 159, 243, 342, 343, 406, 432, 434 awareness campaign, 97 boycott, 55, 147 campaign, 150, 153 choice, 145, 146, 202, 235, 367, 383 concern, 220, 432, 433 demand, 39–55, 112, 147, 159, 192, 214, 227, 344–353 guide, 55, 405 mistrust, 24 organisations, 38, 75, 108 preference, 8, 44, 215, 367, 368, 383 pressure, 153, 202, 405 purchases, 4, 46 rights, 146 support, 30, 237, 243 continuous improvement, 49, 222, 227, 284, 285, 418 control points, 128, 137, 140 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), 192, 194, 210, 247–257 Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), 194 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), 13, 39, 51, 52, 143, 198–202 corrective action, 5, 8, 117, 256, 294, 299, 368, 369, 408, 426 cost inertia, 8, 9 costs fuel, 113 internalise, 8 credence goods, 40, 41

demand pull, 95 Deutsche See, 96, 281 developing country, 60, 93, 99, 198, 208, 290–304, 311, 314, 432 disease, 73, 106–130, 134, 222, 332, 357, 397, 406, 413 disincentive, 8, 254

BLBK019-Ward

440

June 27, 2008

21:21

Index

dissolved oxygen, 122 Dissostichus eleginoides, 194, 247–257 dolphin, 17, 18, 152, 195, 288, 416 bycatch, 17, 416 -friendly, 153, 232, 405, 417 -safe tuna, 13, 17, 42, 46 Dungeness crab, 93 Dutch Antilles, 128

East Asia, 162 EcoFish, 154, 200, 365 ecolabelling guidelines, 29, 61–67, 209 initiatives, 30, 207, 219, 418–431 success, 214 systems, 5–35, 38–55, 62–79, 106, 114, 125, 145, 150, 181, 193–198, 213–243, 288, 417–434 ecological impacts, 7, 210, 243, 399, 419, 429 limits, 143 logos, 31–34 outcomes, 222, 418 standards, 25 econometric analysis, 44 economics of certification consumer demand, 40 incentives, 26, 52, 97, 263 willingness to pay, 39–41, 51 ecosystem approach, 208, 300 ecosystem-based management, 208–211 ecosystems coastal, 121, 128, 218 deep sea, 208 marine, 208–210, 343, 397 ocean, 2–7, 28, 208–220, 407, 414, 418–434 Ecuador, 128, 319 employment, 28, 53, 58, 107, 119, 120, 131, 210, 241, 314, 421, 433 Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ (ECO-NZ), 368

environmental crime, 192 labelling, 10, 11, 38, 62, 65, 190 outcomes, 24, 213, 223, 367, 417 practices, 3, 17, 26, 215, 216, 240 standards, 19, 229, 433 stewardship, 112 Environmental Defense, 27, 151, 152, 326, 334, 343–360 escapes, 134, 223, 332, 357, 397 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), 188, 261, 270, 296, 367 experience goods, 40 externalities, 22, 111

Faeroe Islands, 134 failsafe threshold, 225 FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI), 60–65 Federaci´on Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de Baja California (FEDECOOP), 259–267, 319 feed conversion ratio, 136, 331 Fiji, 163 Fishery Certification Methodology (FCM), 89, 98 flathead flounder, 86 food safety, 106–127, 137, 141, 193, 431, 432 security, 28, 50, 58, 79, 91, 99, 112, 189, 208–211, 431 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), 7, 24, 170, 290, 404, 423 France, 134, 136, 137, 152, 159, 280, 380 fraud, 54, 85, 227 free trade, 21, 118 Frosta, 47 full assessment, 89–94, 248, 276, 289, 293, 308–320, 411, 412, 423–426

gatekeeper, 21, 149, 359, 434 genetic diversity, 73 Germany, 25, 35, 47, 92, 96, 108, 125, 159, 197, 280, 298, 380, 406

BLBK019-Ward

June 27, 2008

21:21

Index

Global Aquaculture Alliance, 39, 107, 116, 117, 333, 413 global market, 2, 17, 18, 53, 159, 319, 336, 342, 416 GLOBALGAP, 14, 35, 114, 134–141, 333, 430, 432 major and minor musts, 140 Gourmet magazine, 149 governance structures, 19, 74, 75, 101, 138, 242, 289–291 government policy, 153, 155, 364, 422 green procurement guidelines, 62 green products, 51 Greenpeace, 95, 153, 159, 253, 272, 273, 384, 403–408 grouper (Serranidae), 163, 371, 391 grow-out, 123, 162–182

HACCP, 128 haddock, 45, 53, 93 hake, 86, 94, 275, 288–304, 368, 369, 380, 381, 412. See also South African hake industry harvesting, 3, 7, 8, 14, 167, 176, 210, 212, 273, 346, 352 hatchery, 76, 123, 125, 135, 162, 182 hatchery production, 162 Hazard Analysis, Critical Control Points (HACCP), 128 heavy metal, 123, 130, 359 herbicide, 108, 123 high-value products, 189 Honduras, 128 Hong Kong, 34, 161–165, 170, 177, 197, 264, 427

Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported fishing (IUU), 21, 55, 191–194, 214, 249–257, 379 implicit weighting, 225 incentive loop, 222 incremental improvement, 14, 216, 224, 234, 242

441

independent observers, 94, 428 India, 128, 311 indicators, 48, 71, 75, 89, 92, 95, 108, 225–238, 248, 264, 274–284, 289–304, 378, 423 Indonesia, 128, 129, 162, 163, 170, 177 industry association, 11, 14–28, 59, 75, 177, 232, 287, 421 industry best practice, 170, 217 innovation, 111, 116, 190, 236, 410 instruments international, 61, 64, 65, 71 voluntary, 4, 367 integrity principles, 139 International Accreditation Forum, 140, 200 International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), 148, 403–406 International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), 200 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 10–19, 63–77, 114, 126, 136–140 International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL), 200 introduced species, 67 invertebrates, 81, 368, 369–374, 397 Ireland, 134 irreversible change, 211 ISEAL, 19, 75 ISO Type I, 10–12 ISO Type II, 11, 12 ISO Type III, 11 issue saliency, 153

Japan, 33, 86, 93, 96, 135, 162, 188–199, 273, 280, 311, 381, 402, 405, 421, 427 Tokyo, 84, 94, 96 job creation, 190 John West, 154, 232

BLBK019-Ward

442

June 27, 2008

21:21

Index

Kamewa Shouten, 96 Kiribati, 163 knowledge gaps, 240, 312, 313, 319

labelling economic theory, 40 law international, 72, 76, 289, 330, 357 national, 121 license fee, 88 Lidl, 96, 281 Live Reef Food Fish Trade (LRFFT), 161–184 lobbying power, 314–316 logo licensing, 52, 88, 293 long supply chains, 191

Madagascar, 128 Malaysia, 136, 162, 163 Maldives, 162 management advice, 247 controls, 15, 93, 189, 209 ecosystem-based, 208–211 measures, 6, 72–74, 208, 223, 256, 295, 330, 404, 412 practices, 28, 53, 60, 85, 92, 94, 107, 112, 129, 208, 331, 412 mangroves, 119, 125, 128, 129 marginal costs, 39 marginal value, 41 Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) implementation, 93–95, 193–195, 213–228, 247, 248, 259–263, 273–278, 288–301 programme description and evolution, 1, 2, 39, 81–92, 406–407, 416 programme effectiveness challenges 99–102, 116, 197–201, 289–291, 301–303, 367, 368, 432, 433 successes, 96–98, 254, 255, 307 reform agenda, 98, 201–203, 208, 270, 281–285

regions of activity Asia, 95 Australia and New Zealand, 94 Europe, 93 Japan, 94 North America, 94 South Africa, 95 South America, 94 Marine Stewardship Council International (MSCI), 84, 88, 294 market access, 9, 64, 87, 116, 190 -based incentive, 2–16, 38–54, 207–242, 285, 413, 429 campaign, 335 chain, 68 controls, 21 impact, 17, 270, 280, 416 marketplace, sustainable seafood, 146–159, 280, 345 -pull, 6, 7, 9 research, 54, 97, 148, 364, 383 retail, 4 risks, 39 share, 6, 9, 38, 40–54, 62, 207, 287, 314 transformation, 97, 102, 155 Marks and Spencers, 47, 51 Marshall Islands, 163 Merluccius capensis and Merluccius paradoxus, 86, 275–301, 420 Metro, 96, 152, 276, 280 Mexico, 85, 86, 100, 128, 259–266, 290, 293, 304, 313–319, 346 Migros, 47, 95, 199, 276, 281 model market-based incentive, 242 voluntary, 8 Monterey Bay Aquarium, 30, 151, 152, 200, 326, 334, 340–365, 405–411 Seafood Watch Pocket Guides, 342 Seafood Watch program, 30, 340–365, 405–411 motivational bias, 219, 221, 226, 427 MSC. See Marine Stewardship Council

BLBK019-Ward

June 27, 2008

21:21

Index

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA), 190 Myanmar, 162

Namibia, 190, 298, 299 National Fisheries Institute, 158, 313, 337, 405 national jurisdiction, 208, 210, 325 National State of the Environment Report (SOE), 389 Netherlands, 86, 96, 136, 159, 214, 278, 280, 368 New England Aquarium aquaculture, 330 corporate engagement, 323 sustainable fisheries programme, 322 wild fisheries, 329 New Zealand, 1, 10, 24, 27, 33, 59, 86, 93, 134, 197, 201, 249, 269, 274, 275, 278, 291, 292, 298, 367–385 Nicaragua, 128 Nitrofen, 108 nitrofuran, 130 nitrogen, 122 non-governmental organisation (NGO), 17, 24, 59, 75, 115, 117, 137, 156, 196, 248, 253, 269, 270, 273–285, 308, 323, 407 Non-state control, 21 North Sea, 86, 92, 159, 414 Norway, 35, 43, 44, 60, 92, 111, 134, 135, 158, 405, 421

objection procedures, 85 Ocean Wise, 200 ocean-plate connection, 144, 149 oil palm, 136 open-access, 52, 111 organic agriculture, 197 farm, 108, 197, 349 food, 30, 46, 349, 405 label, 115 standards, 113, 125, 196

443

Organisation for the Promotion of Responsible Tuna Fishing (OPRT), 193, 194 organised crime, 191 overcapacity, 52, 273, 288 overcapitalisation, 52 over-exploitation, 167, 208, 210 overexploited, 208 oysters, 35, 114, 397

Panulirus interruptus, 85, 93, 259–264 Papua New Guinea, 163 Patagonian scallop, 93 Patagonian toothfish, 194, 247–257 pelagic fish, 86 peer review, 12, 89, 248, 251, 256, 264, 291, 370, 400 People’s Republic of China (PRC), 163, 164, 177 performance benchmark, 217, 421 indicator, 71, 89, 92, 225–238, 274, 283, 284, 289 perverse impacts, 9 pesticide, 123 Philippines, 128, 161–163, 170, 177, 318 phosphorus, 122 policy framework, 7, 58 pollution, 106, 111, 134, 189, 208, 234, 307, 357, 400 Portunus pelagicus, 318, 391 post-larvae, 122, 123, 125 poverty, 58, 79, 112, 117, 189 poverty alleviation, 79, 112, 189 prawn, 13, 93, 392, 396, 397, 399 pre-assessment, 89, 236, 248, 249, 263, 289, 293, 308–317, 361, 411, 412, 425, 426 precautionary approach, 70, 72, 74, 240, 251, 277, 309, 357, 371, 424 Precce Premium, 96 preferences revealed, 42 stated, 42

BLBK019-Ward

444

June 27, 2008

21:21

Index

price disadvantage, 9 increment, 3, 9, 27, 267 premium, 9, 39, 42–53, 87, 181, 213, 264, 298 structure, 8 processor, 115, 270, 273, 281, 288 procurement practice, 152, 335 product differentiation, 227, 235, 417, 430 endorsement, 3–25, 215–242, 423 purse recommendation card, 4 quality, 40 wallet recommendation card, 4, 55, 150, 362, 370, 383, 384 proliferation of non-credible ecolabels, 79 property rights, 52, 265 protectionism, 189 provenance, 255, 433 public policy, 83, 116, 149, 158, 404–413 reform, 83 purchasing power, 2, 30, 91, 202, 229, 343, 344–360, 428 purchasing recommendation, 2, 152, 352

quality assurance, 128, 139, 140

ratings, 2, 4, 18, 19, 55, 215, 241, 243, 417 reassessment, 10, 77, 269, 274, 276 reef habitat, 161, 168 reference point, 16, 72, 263, 378, 389 limit, 72, 221 Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO), 66, 190 regional fishery body (RFB), 66 regulations, 3, 41, 48, 51, 52, 61, 64, 65, 72, 82, 119–122, 130, 197, 257, 261, 278, 292, 331 regulatory framework, 190 remedial measures, 209 renewable resource, 81 reseller, 27 resilience, 210, 211, 375, 377 resource

access, 167 allocation, 192, 315, 316, 404, 419, 420 management, 19, 58, 169, 195, 209, 210, 298, 317, 354, 367 marine living, 208, 377 security, 209 stewardship, 323 restaurant, 143–157, 166, 168, 200, 335, 349–365, 384, 398, 401, 429 risk assessment, 11, 72, 73, 89, 114, 264 management, 73 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s New Zealand Best Fish Guide, 201, 367

salmon global market, 134 scoring guideposts, 89, 98, 283, 289 Scotland, 34, 35, 108, 134, 135 SE Asia, 161–164, 167 sea bass, 55, 86, 94, 149, 150, 158 sea cage, 134, 394 seabream, 112 seafood ecolabelled, 2, 5–27, 39–55, 92, 95, 153, 410, 416 farmed, 1, 45–50, 112–131, 134–141, 150–159, 323–336, 351–363, 392, 396, 411, 413 guides, 1–24, 63, 151, 158, 215, 241, 243, 342–365, 370, 392, 417–430 industry, 1–27, 52, 54, 55, 85, 118, 127, 145, 146–159, 198, 213, 285, 287, 323–337, 346–361, 393–402, 405–411, 430 sustainable, 2, 30, 38–55, 89–103, 143–159, 192–203, 214, 215, 280, 334–336, 340–365, 391–402, 405–414, 422 wild capture, 1, 168, 170, 209, 269 seafood budget, 43 Seafood Business magazine, 27, 146, 148, 158 Seafood Choices Alliance, 143–159, 343, 354, 365

BLBK019-Ward

June 27, 2008

21:21

Index

Seafood Summit, 147–157 Seafood Watch Pocket Guides, 342 seagrass, 121 seal-of-approval, 38 search cost, 40 search goods, 40 Seaways, 154 sector committees, 137 sediment, 122, 331, 389 seed stock, 118 Seiyu, 96 self-assessment, 5, 12, 14, 23, 196, 232, 417, 422 self-declaration, 11, 180 sewage, 123 Seychelles, 162 shrimp, 13–35, 39–55, 93, 112–131, 158, 195, 288, 345–364, 413 shrimp farming, 121–128 Singapore, 162, 163 small-scale fisheries data dilemma, 309, 312 knowledge gaps, 312, 313 snow crab, 86, 93, 96, 427 social marketing, 144–150, 405, 406 Sourcing Seafood directory, 156 South African hake industry criticism of MSC programme, 288–291 evaluation of MSC certification, 301 motivations for MSC certification, 297 South America, 93, 100, 131, 159, 243, 247, 320 Spain, 35, 134, 136, 156, 298, 380 spatial management, 211 species exploited, 210 protected, 16, 23, 95, 241, 371–379 resource, 312 target, 15, 71, 85, 167, 194, 211, 241, 330 threatened, 330, 371–381 translocated, 72 stakeholders, 1–20, 49, 59, 84–101, 108, 120, 127, 137, 168–182, 210–242, 250, 264, 274–279, 290, 312, 317, 318, 368, 421–426

445

consultation, 84–91, 177, 279 industry, 176, 178 input, 220, 293 involvement, 91, 309, 312 key, 177, 312 participation, 177, 277, 285 standard, 5–25, 44, 51, 69–77, 84–102, 114, 122, 125, 136–141, 153, 154, 168–180, 195–201, 212–242, 255, 264, 272–285, 288–304, 313–320, 327–332, 343–359, 392, 393, 417–431 balanced, 222, 231 community, 21, 229 ecological, 25, 216, 224, 421, 431 environmental, 12, 19, 84, 229, 255, 433 ethical, 106, 126 explicit, 422, 425 farmed salmon, 141 fixed, 227, 228, 277, 285, 422, 424, 425 flexible, 217–236, 424, 427 global, 220, 430, 432 industry, 14, 168, 169, 184, 432 international, 50, 61, 65, 72, 137, 140, 168, 169, 171–180 live reef food fish trade, 163, 179 minimum, 65, 66, 79, 421, 429, 433, 434 minimum acceptable, 225 owner, 16, 217, 219, 220–232, 422, 424, 427, 430 performance, 10, 26, 430 setting, 12, 69, 75, 242, 295, 426 sustainability, 4–28, 69, 76, 153, 216–231, 269–283, 420–433 stock enhancement, 71, 72, 134 depleted, 144 stocking densities, 125 striped bass, 93, 149, 150 student, 30 subsidies, 190, 191 sulphite, 123 supermarket, 12, 51, 95, 145–153, 202, 214, 232, 281, 288, 323, 335, 355, 382, 383, 390, 409, 417

BLBK019-Ward

446

June 27, 2008

21:21

Index

supply push, 92 supply-side, 187, 191, 242 surimi, 27, 93, 273, 281 surveillance audit, 85, 91, 299, 423 suspended solids, 122 sustainability, 3–30, 41–55, 59–79, 81–102, 106–130, 134, 143, 147, 151–159, 161–180, 187–203, 207–243, 248, 254, 256, 269–285, 288–304, 307–320, 323–337, 344–363, 368, 370, 372, 389, 390–399, 407–411, 417–433 bar, 422 criteria, 108, 154, 355, 357 ecological, 3–22, 147, 211–241, 316, 371, 379, 399, 417–434 environmental, 4, 154, 320, 329, 389 movement, 143 principles, 355, 356 social, 117, 119, 131, 167 sustainable development, 58, 60, 107, 108, 117, 330 sustainable seafood marketplace, 159, 280 sustainable use, 63, 69, 71, 72, 167, 192, 201, 203 Sweden, 13, 96, 196 Switzerland, 34, 47, 95, 152, 159, 197, 199, 298

Taiwan, 162, 163, 260, 264 Technical Agreement on Barriers to Trade (TBT), 61, 69, 75, 77 Technical Consultation, 61, 63, 64, 70 technical guidelines, 60 technical knowledge, 41, 118, 228, 229, 230, 426 technological innovation, 190 Tesco, 26 Thailand, 115, 128, 158, 162, 163, 177 Thames Herring Drift-Net Fishery, 1 The New England Aquarium, 152, 322, 323, 337 Theragra chalcogramma, 13, 14, 24, 85, 93, 269–285, 411–421. See also Alaska pollock

third party, 11, 41, 68, 84 Tilapia, 35, 53, 124, 351, 413 tipping point, 26, 27, 92, 103, 147, 411 toxicity, 130 traceability, 50, 54, 68, 78, 85, 99, 113–127, 137, 141, 176, 193, 215, 433 trade dispute, 65, 118 distortion, 117 dumping, 131, 191, 381 globalisation, 8, 112, 130 international, 18, 58, 62, 69, 106, 120, 130, 183, 188–190 non-tariff barrier, 22 regional, 163, 164 traditional knowledge, 65, 70, 72 training, 58, 74, 89, 99, 127, 138, 139, 173, 203, 223, 335, 344–351, 364 training course, 127, 139 train-the-trainer, 136, 139 transaction cost, 10 tuna, 5–31, 45, 46, 81, 82, 93, 147–158, 191–202, 230, 232, 288, 342–354, 375, 376, 399, 403, 405, 413, 416. See also dolphin albacore, 88, 94, 377 bluefin, 30, 202, 342, 403 canned, 18, 45, 46, 232 yellowfin, 17, 147 turtle-safe shrimp, 17

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 61, 63, 64, 71 UN Environment Programme, 82 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, 63, 70, 71, 372 uncertainty, 2, 70, 73, 74, 169, 211–240, 263, 284, 285, 295, 312, 406 Unilever, 23, 39, 47, 51, 59, 66, 82, 83, 153, 157, 199, 214, 270, 272, 280, 288, 290, 295, 298, 406–409, 419, 426 unintended consequences, 115, 149, 217, 227, 242

BLBK019-Ward

June 27, 2008

21:21

Index

Vancouver Aquarium, 200, 346 Venezuela, 128 verification, 238 Vietnam, 128, 129, 162, 170, 311, 313

Waitrose, 47, 95 Wal-Mart, 26, 27, 47, 51, 95, 97, 152, 154, 157, 199, 276, 337, 409, 410, 411 wealth generation, 28, 112, 208–211 well managed, 3, 14, 227, 230, 236, 247, 396, 420 Western Rock Lobster Fishery, 1, 9, 10, 217, 218, 421

447

whales, 147, 376, 403 whitefish, 13, 53, 85, 94, 95, 268–281, 412 Whole Foods, 27, 47, 51, 95, 153, 154, 199, 214, 255, 276 wholesaler, 168, 221 wild-caught juveniles, 162 willingness to pay, 39, 40, 41, 51 World Trade Organization (WTO), 61–65, 75, 77, 190, 213, 214 World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), 23, 27, 39, 42, 59, 82–100, 121, 152–159, 199, 253, 254, 265, 275–280, 288–294, 307–319, 404–409