At the end of the decade - a global review of

fish sustainability information schemes

Duncan Souter

Seafood Directions, 2010

Background

• Rapid increase in number and scale of fish

sustainability information schemes in past decade:

– WWF Germany - 10,000 copies of ‘Fish to Eat and Avoid’

list in 1997; now prints 1.5 million

– MSC began certifying fisheries in 1999; now has 8% of the

world edible wild capture fisheries, inc. 40% of prime

whitefish (cod, pollock, hake, etc)

• Driven by (amongst other things):

• Response to failure of traditional command and control

management to maintain sustainability of many stocks

• Increasing public consciousness about benefits of

sustainable fisheries

Role and types of fish sustainability

information schemes

• Overarching aim: To modify market demand for fish

to support sustainability and reduce impacts on the

environment – through informing consumer choice.

• Many forms, but two main types:

– Certification schemes:

• assess the status of a species/product; may lead to an

ecolabel

– Recommendation lists:

• Use a ‘traffic light’ or other system to provide

information on sustainability

• frequently prepared by NGOs as part of wider

campaigns

Why review?

• Despite successes, general perception:

– lack of consistency between schemes

– some contradictory recommendations

– confused consumers: what’s good & bad?

– confusion undermines the purpose of better

communications about fish purchasing decisions

� Consumer uncertainty

The study

• MRAG commissioned by Fish Sustainability

Information Group (FSIG – FRDC a member) to

undertake review of schemes

• Goals to

a) Provide an objective assessment of certification schemes

and recommendation lists (capture fisheries and

aquaculture)

b) Provide recommendations for future development &

revisions

Target audience

Consumers

RetailersWholesalers and

Suppliers

Fishers and Producers

Scheme Owners

Restaurants

Approach - benchmark

• Benchmarked schemes against FAO guidelines:

– FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery

Products from Marine Capture Fisheries (FAO, 2005)

Management system – State of Stock – Ecosystem Impacts

– Draft FAO Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification

(FAO, 2008)

Animal health and welfare – Food Safety and Quality

Environmental Integrity – Social Issues

Approach - process

• Scoping and selection of schemes

• Reviewing the schemes

– Desk-based research

– Contacting organisations

(questionnaire, calls, meetings)

– Compilation of information

• Analysis and synthesis

• 17 schemes reviewed – across capture fisheries, aquaculture,

certification schemes, recommendation lists, organic certifiers,

national standards

‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09

Naturland

Global

Aquaculture

Alliance

Thai Quality

Shrimp

Australian

Government:

DEWHA

Soil

Association

Marine Eco-

label Japan

Friend of the

Sea

Certification Schemes

Marine

Stewardship

Council

GlobalGAP

Krav

EPBC Act passed First fishery approval

Organic aquaculture standards commence

certification

Organic shellfish

standard

Organisation founded

Initiative commences Implementation commences

Organisation founded

Independent from WWF & Unilever

Organisation founded

Operations begin

Aquaculture standards developed

Organisation founded

2001-05 development of standards for capture fisheries

Species specific standards developed for carp/pondStandards developed for capture

fisheries

Founded as EurepGAP Aquaculture certification initiated

Became GlobalGAP

‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09

Discussions for

ASC

Marine

Conservation

Society (UK)

Fishwatch

North Sea Foundation Goede VIS

Australian Marine

Conservation

Society

Produced seafood guide

Sustainable

Fisheries

Partnership

Organisation founded

Seafood campaign aimed at retailers

launched

Started developing methodology for

assessing fisheries

Started developing methodology for

assessing fisheries

Programme started by NSF

WWF Discussions for MSC

“What is a fish lover to eat?” produced for Fishing for Solutions exhibit 1997 –1999

Start to develop FishWatch

Seafood Watch' Initiated

Monterey Bay

Aquarium

Greenpeace

Recommendation lists & Information providers

Publication of the 'Good Fish Guide'; 2004 launch of

'Fishonline'

The report

• Two parts:

– Main – comparative assessment of schemes

against benchmark and each other. Also:

• Performance against FAO guidelines

• Relationships between schemes

• Stakeholder perspectives

• Measuring success

– Annex – detailed scheme by scheme review:

• Who are they?;

• What does the scheme do?

• How does the scheme work?

• What are the results?

• Organisational costs and funding

Main findings

• Substantial success in increasing awareness of

sustainable fishing and aquaculture issues (particularly

within a limited number of mainly developed country

supply chains)

• Compliance with FAO guidelines seen as important and

increasing

• As always, scope for improvements

• Positive experience-willingness to participate in the

review was mostly high

Main findings

BUT...

• Inconsistent approaches

• Contradictory advice

• Black box

• Old data

• Agenda driven

• Broad brush

• Exclusive

Seven key attributes that all schemes must address to

mitigate these problems:

–Scope (consistent with FAO guidelines; standards set by experts

and assessed independently);

–Accuracy (paramount; info needs to be comprehensive, up-to-

date, well-referenced and peer-reviewed where possible);

–Independence (needs to be immune to industrial/political

influence);

–Precision (need for well-defined fishery units);

–Transparency (scoring criteria should be publicly available; need to

allow for stakeholder input);

–Standardisation (need to work towards greater harmonisation);

and

–Cost-effectiveness (balance between robustness and cost).

Specific findings: Certification schemes Vs

Recommendation lists

– Participation in cert. schemes voluntary; rec. lists not

– Cert. schemes can drill down into specific practices of a

fishery/unit of certification; rec. lists assess fish species or

groups of species – can mask significant differences

between fisheries – all fisheries ‘tarred with same brush’

– Cert. schemes have well defined timetables for audit,

duration of certificate and re-certification; many rec lists

review information irregularly, meaning information can

circulate after currency has expired

Specific findings: Certification schemes Vs

Recommendation lists

• Generally more difficult to trace how conclusion has

been reached with rec. lists than cert. schemes; cert.

schemes have more transparent procedures and peer

review

• Cert schemes have generally decoupled standard

setting from auditing – promotes objectivity; rec lists

often done within same organisation – can be

influenced by wider objectives

Specific findings: Certification schemes

• Generally more robust assessments, but can be time

consuming and costly.

• Little standardisation/equivalence between certification

schemes, particularly for fisheries (better for aquaculture).

• Significant differences in operation – e.g. scope of

assessment, extent and currency of data used, peer-

review practices and cost

• Primarily industry funded (except national schemes).

Specific findings: Recommendation lists

• Important niche for consumers; covering more species

and products than are certified

• Free to assess any product; no difficulty covering

fisheries in developing countries

• NGO Campaign priorities (e.g. a global ban on bottom

trawling) may be put ahead of fishery-specific, peer-

reviewed outcomes (e.g. MSC has certified several

bottom trawl fisheries).

Recommendations

• Commitment to meet FAO guidelines; independent

verification; complete aquaculture guidelines (imminent)

• Recommendation lists should align themselves better with

info in certification schemes where available; be more

precise with advice where not

• Recommendation lists should have independent standard

setting; distance themselves from assessments against

own standard

• Use current and relevant data

• Adopt transparent and responsive updating procedure

• Information available for peer review (process and

outcome)

Recommendations

• Recognition of equivalence– promote linkages

• Retailers must take responsibility for selecting and

promoting trustworthy schemes for their consumers

• Develop market recognition and consumer awareness;

number of labelled products needs to increase to

improve brand recognition

• Improve applicability of schemes to products from

small-scale and data-deficient fisheries and

aquaculture operations

Conclusion

• Consensus along the value chain of the importance of

Fish Sustainability Information Schemes

• Strong commitment to fishery and aquaculture

improvement and sustainable fish supplies

• Key challenge: improve the contribution of the

schemes through communication of clearer, more

accurate & more recent information to promote

properly informed choices and sustainable seafood

consumption globally.

Thank you

Report can be accessed (free) at:

www.seafish.org and

www.mrag.co.uk