“Assessment of On-Pack, Wild-Capture Seafood Sustainability Certification

Programmes and Seafood Ecolabels”CSSI Meeting, 8-2-10

Costa Mesa, CA

Bill FoxVice President, FisheriesWWF-US

DisclaimerAccenture, through its international development unit, Accenture DevelopmentPartnerships (ADP), has supported WWF in conducting a thorough and structured assessment of sustainable wild-capture seafood ecolabelling schemes (further referred as to as “ecolabels”). This assessment is aimed primarily at the impact of unsustainable fishing in the marine environment, and identifying labels that support ecologically sustainable fishing and fishery management systems. Other impacts such as carbon footprint, environmental impacts of production, social issues and animal welfare have been qualitatively assessed. Accenture provided an assessment methodology, gathered and verified publicly available data with individual labels, and conducted the assessment of each label’s performance against assessment criteria provided by WWF, in line with the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) guidelines. Accenture is not technically nor scientifically expert in this arena, nor are they stakeholders or an interested party in the field of marine conservation. The scope of Accenture’s support was to apply Accenture’s approach, methodology and experience with other assessment exercises to develop and execute the review. Accenture was not engaged in identifying the ecolabel inventory, nor in developing the assessment criteria. Since Accenture did not review or comment on the criteria, Accenture takes no responsibility for the resultant ranking of labels.

Why?

Proliferation of seafood ecolabelling schemes leads to confusion and possibly a lack of confidence

And to find out more about:

What qualities of certification programs are important and result in meaningful change?

Which labels are best structured to contribute to the recovery of fisheries and marine ecosystems?

Are there other elements of best-practice across labels that could enhance seafood ecolabelling overall?

Who?

• Commissioned by WWF

• Conducted by Accenture Development Partnerships

• Delivered in December 2009

Who is Accentu ?

• Accenture Development Partnerships (group within global consulting firm Accenture) helps non-profit organizations achieve social and economic development goals

• Accenture does not have expertise in ecolabelling, nor are they an interested party in the field of marine conservation

• Accenture applied their experience with other assessment exercises to develop and execute the review

• Accenture did not review or comment on the criteria developed by WWF

Methodology

1. Inventory

2. Criteria

3. Assessment

Goal: Compare and rank fishery certification schemes with seafood ecolabels against a set of WWF criteria that focus on the schemes’

effectiveness in addressing the health of fisheries and oceans

1. Inventory

2. Criteria

Standards should effectively deliver sustainably fished seafood by being based on:

– FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries

– ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards

– WWF's ecosystem-based management framework for fisheries

Six areas grouped under two themes:Governance, Structure and Procedures• Standard Setting Structures and Procedures• Accreditation and Certification Structures• Accreditation and Certification Procedures

2. Criteria (cont.)

Content• Ecological Criteria• Fishery Management System• Traceability

2. Criteria (cont.)Criteria (103) recognized that the best systems:• Are voluntary• Are transparent• Involve stakeholders• Are third-party• Involve independent and impartial certifiers• Rely on best scientific evidence and verified fisher knowledge• Have clear requirements for data used during certification• Have a credible complaints/objections system• Have clear requirements for delineating fishery under assessment• Fully account for stock status and reference points• Consider key dependent species• Require specified management objectives and approaches, effective monitoring,

dispute resolution• Specify traceability requirements• Specify audit and inspection procedures

3. Assessment

• Inventory and criteria supplied by WWF to Accenture, who designed and conducted the actual assessment

• Accenture:– Gathered data about each ecolabel (and contacted each

organization to verify the data)– Quantitatively assessed the labels on the basis of how

they are set up to improve fisheries management and support marine ecosystem health

– Identified best practices across the ecolabels – Qualitatively highlighted emerging issues in ecolabelling

such as carbon footprint, social equity and animal welfare

Quantitative Results

Quantitative Results (cont.)

Score against assessment criteria

Perc

en

t sc

ore

MSCNaturlandFriend of the SeaKravAIDCPMEL-JapanSouthern Rocklobster

95.6%

Ecolabel

• None of the assessed ecolabels meet or exceed all criteria

• Areas of stronger performance: • - Traceability • - Accreditation and Certification Structures

• Areas of weaker performance: • - Ecological Sustainability • - Fisheries Management System

• There are significant differences in the transparency, information availability, structure and accuracy of each program

Quantitative Results (cont.)

Quantitative Results (cont)

• MSC ranked highest, with a score of nearly 96 percent• compliance with the assessment’s criteria

• Other ecolabels not well balanced across all six areas• to the extent required to support sustainable fishing

• Shortcomings in other ecolabels cast doubt on their overall contribution to effective fisheries management and ecological sustainability

Emerging Issues

Accenture’s empirical analysis focused on publicly available information regarding:

• Environmental impacts• Social and ethical aspects• Economic aspects• Animal welfare / other

Environmental Impacts

•Many programs claim to cover the environmental impacts of fishing operations, but only a few have a systematic or organized approach with quantifiable outcomes and indicators

•Most programs lack a holistic and integrated approach, leading to selective treatment of environmental issues

•Carbon footprint is the key area emerging in many sustainability programs, but few have done anything concrete on this topic to date

Social/Ethical Aspects

•Limited number of programs address social impacts or ethics through detailed directives

•A few programs do have extensive and formal frameworks, thus the potential exists for including more social and ethical dimensions in seafood ecolabelling programs

•Most sustainability programs •that include basic social/ethical •initiatives are largely focused on •claims without specific outcomes •or results

• Very few ecolabels target economics

• Those that do also lack transparency, sound business principles, and credible business incentives

• Main focus tends to be creating price incentives (e.g. some programs claim to guarantee higher prices or a minimum ordering quantity over a period of time), supporting local economy and trade, or lowering certification costs

Economic Aspects

• Few target animal welfare (exception is dolphin protection)

• No sustainability program has a systematic approach to animal welfare.

• Safety for human consumption: several connected to well-managed and elaborate food watch programs

• No wild-caught fisheries ecolabel has joined forces with a separate food health and safety label (e.g. GlobalGAP)

Animal Welfare / Other

Key Conclusions

• MSC clearly ahead of the rest of the ecolabels assessed (but not perfect)

• Poor performance among other assessed seafood ecolabelling schemes

• There are improvements across the board that can strengthen ecolabel effectiveness

Thank you