certify sustainable aquaculture?

Certify Sustainable Aquaculture?

Simon R. Bush, Ben Belton, Derek Hall, Peter Vandergeest, Francis J. Murray, Stefano Ponte, Peter Oosterveer, Md SaidulIslam, Arthur P.J. Mol, Maki Hatanaka, Froukje Kruijssen, Tran

Thi Thu Ha, David C. Little and Rini Kusumawati

World Aquaculture Adelaide7-10 June 2014

The rise of eco-certification

Around nearly 20 years; currently 30 plus schemes relevant for aquaculture

An sophisticated (voluntary) private-led system of environmental governance:

● Setting standards

● Coaching compliance

● Assessing compliance

● Attaching labels

● Coordination of these activities

CABs

LABEL

PRODUCER

Product

CERTIFICATIONCHAIN

ACTORS

CONSUMER

Hatanaka and Busch 2005, Food Policy

Drivers of private eco-certification

Industry perception ofover regulation by

Northern states

NGO perception of under regulationby Southern states

Reputational risk of downstream chain actors in response to

ENGOs.

THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION

Consumer demand and market

differentiation (?)

Market drivers

State drivers

AIPs and conformity assessment market (?)

Bene 2005, Dev. Pol. Rev.; Ponte et al. 2011

Questions

So what lessons have we learnt

about aquaculture certification?

What are the future prospects for

certification as a form of environmental and

social regulation?

LOOKING BACK LOOKING FORWARD

1. Inclusion/Exclusion

Standard development

● Danger of ‘performativity’ in standard development stage

● Farmers 6% attendees at PAD; “Industry capture” in TAD

● (Ongoing transparency also differs)

(Anh et al 2010)

Who has resources to attend?

Who has skills to contribute?

Who speaks on whose behalf?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

% o

f p

arti

cip

ants

Pangasius Aquaculture Dialogue

1. Inclusion/Exclusion

At certification –Who makes the grade?

● CapabilitiesCost; literacy; organisational issues for small scale farmers

● Self-selectionDanger of not focusing on those with larger sustainability gains

● Clustering (?)Addressed largely through farmer, association or processor-led groups

(Khiem et al. 2010; Ha et al. 2013; Kusumawati and Bush In press)

GRASP

IntegratedOperating

Module

1. Inclusion/Exclusion

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2001 2004 2005 2008

Number of cooperatives Joint capital (mil. VND)

Concentration and intensification ofshrimp co‐operatives in Ca Mau, Vietnam

Ha et al 2012 Aquaculture

Mill

ion

VN

D

# C

oope

rativ

es

Intensification

1. Inclusion/Exclusion

Ha et al 2012 Aquaculture

What is the structure of the chain?What are the terms of incorporation into the chain?

2. Narrow farm-level focus

Landscape issues difficult to take upFragmentation of water, forest management

Inputs only starting to be includedFeed and transport

Area-based certification?Greater role for the state

3. Market demand

Difference between certifiable volume and (current) market demand

4.6 4.67.8 7.9

29.2

61.0

58.4

26.5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Species specific standards Multi-species standards

Currently non-certifiableproduction

Certifiable productionwith no current marketdemand

Remaining potentialglobal demand forcertified products

Certified production

73.5

41.6

4.6 4.6

37

68.9

7.8 7.9

61

29.2

} }

~12.5%See Bush et al 2013,Science 341: 1067‐68

What does the future hold?

A greater role for government? The suspicion that states are unable to regulate does not hold true everywhere.

Leverage to vulnerabilityEU import 65% and US 91% of what is consumed.Gives leverage – but also makes these markets vulnerable.

FAO 2014

Convergenceof import volumes

A post-(global)certification world?

National standards (VietGAP, Thai GAP TAS 7401)Lower cost, greater inclusion, a ‘local’ social contract?

Industrial coalitions (GSI, ISSF) Will they go for certification or claim sustainability otherwise?

Industry-led benchmarking (GSSI)Driving harmonisation or equivalency? What will be the consequences for national standards?

Conclusion

Aquaculture certification makes an important but only partial contribution

But, we need to be clear that it is one tool in a wide variety of private and public approaches to governing aquaculture

Research and practice needs to focus on complementarities between private and public forms of regulation