at the end of the decade -a global review of fish...
TRANSCRIPT
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.