8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

1/22

1

AN ASSIGNMENT

ON

CODE OF CONDUCT OF RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES: ARTICLE 11

AND 12

FOR THE COURSE

ADVANCES IN FISHING TECHNOLOGY

FRM 512 (2+1)

By

Satish kumar koushlesh

FRM MA1 07

CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES EDUCATION(Deemed University)

Indian Council of Agricultural Research Versova, Mumbai - 400 061

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

2/22

2

DECLARATION

I here by declare that the above assignment named Code of conduct for

responsible fisheries: Article 11 and 12 is solely prepared by me by referring to

various references and not simply copied from any of the colleagues .

Date: 15/12/11 Satish kumar koushlesh

Place: Versova FRM MA1-07

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

3/22

3

CONTENTS

TOPIC PAGENUMBER

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

4/22

4

INTRODUCTION

Fisheries, including aquaculture, provide a vital source of food, employment,

recreation, trade and economic well-being for people throughout the world, both

for present and future generations and should therefore be conducted in a

responsible manner. This Code sets out principles and international standards of

behaviour for responsible practices with a view to ensuring the effective

conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources, with

due respect for the ecosystem and biodiversity. The Code recognizes the

nutritional, economic, social, environmental and cultural importance of fisheries

and the interests of all those concerned with the fishery sector. The Code takes

into account the biological characteristics of the resources and their

environment and the interests of consumers and other users. States and all those

involved in fisheries are encouraged to apply the Code and give effect to it.

The Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries ,adopted on October 31, 1995

by more than 170 members of the FAO, has been described as one of the most

important international instruments devised for management of planets aquatic

resources. A collection of principles, goals and elements of actions, it sets out

standard of behaviour for responsible practices in fisheries. The aim: to ensure

effective conservation, management and development of aquatic resources.

The code is voluntary in nature and directed at all stake holders of fisheries its

production, processing and marketing; its governance and administration.

ARTICLE 11 - POST-HARVEST PRACTICES AND TRADE

11.1 Responsible fish utilization

11.1.1 States should adopt appropriate measures to ensure the right ofconsumers to safe, wholesome and unadulterated fish and fishery products.

11.1.2 States should establish and maintain effective national safety and quality

assurance systems to protect consumer health and prevent commercial fraud.

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

5/22

5

11.1.3 States should set minimum standards for safety and quality assurance and

make sure that these standards are effectively applied throughout the industry.

They should promote the implementation of quality standards agreed within the

context of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission and other relevant

organizations or arrangements.

11.1.4 States should cooperate to achieve harmonization, or mutual recognition,

or both, of national sanitary measures and certification programmes as

appropriate and explore possibilities for the establishment of mutually

recognized control and certification agencies.

11.1.5 States should give due consideration to the economic and social role of

the post-harvest fisheries sector when formulating national policies for the

sustainable development and utilization of fishery resources.

11.1.6 States and relevant organizations should sponsor research in fish

technology and quality assurance and support projects to improve post-harvest

handling of fish, taking into account the economic, social, environmental and

nutritional impact of such projects.

11.1.7 States, noting the existence of different production methods, should

through cooperation and by facilitating the development and transfer of

appropriate technologies, ensure that processing, transporting and storage

methods are environmentally sound.

11.1.8 States should encourage those involved in fish processing, distribution

and marketing to:

a) reduce post-harvest losses and waste;

b) improve the use of by-catch to the extent that this is consistent with

responsible fisheries management practices; and

c) use the resources, especially water and energy, in particular wood, in an

environmentally sound manner.

11.1.9 States should encourage the use of fish for human, consumption and

promote consumption of fish whenever appropriate.

11.1.10 States should cooperate in order to facilitate the production of value-

added products by developing countries.

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

6/22

6

11.1.11 States should 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.

11.1.12 States should ensure that environmental effects of post-harvest activities

are considered in the development of related laws, regulations and policies

without creating any market distortions.

11.2 Responsible international trade

11.2.1 The provisions of this Code should be interpreted and applied in

accordance with the principles, rights and obligations established in the World

Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.

11.2.2 International trade in fish and fishery products should not compromise

the sustainable development of fisheries and responsible utilization of living

aquatic resources.

11.2.3 States should ensure that measures affecting international trade in fish

and fishery products are transparent, based, when applicable, on scientific

evidence, and are in accordance with internationally agreed rules.

11.2.4 Fish trade measures adopted by States to protect human or animal life or

health, the interests of consumers or the environment, should not be

discriminatory and should be in accordance with internationally agreed trade

rules, in particular the principles, rights and obligations established in the

Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the

Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade of the WTO.

11.2.5 States should further liberalize trade in fish and fishery products and

eliminate barriers and distortions to trade such as duties, quotas and non-tariff

barriers in accordance with the principles, rights and obligations of the WTO

Agreement.

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

7/22

7

11.2.6 States should not directly or indirectly create unnecessary or hidden

barriers to trade which limit the consumer's freedom of choice of supplier or

that restrict market access.

11.2.7 States should not condition access to markets to access to resources. This

principle does not preclude the possibility of fishing agreements between States

which include provisions referring to access to resources, trade and access to

markets, transfer of technology, scientific research, training and other relevant

elements.

11.2.8 States should not link access to markets to the purchase of specific

technology or sale of other products.

11.2.9 States should cooperate in complying with relevant international

agreements regulating trade in endangered species.

11.2.10 States should develop international agreements for trade in live

specimens where there is a risk of environmental damage in importing or

exporting States.

11.2.11 States should cooperate to promote adherence to, and effective

implementation of relevant international standards for trade in fish and fishery

products and living aquatic resource conservation.

11.2.12 States should not undermine conservation measures for living aquatic

resources in order to gain trade or investment benefits.

11.2.13 States should cooperate. to develop internationally acceptable rules or

standards for trade in fish and fishery products in accordance with the

principles, rights, and obligations established in the WTO Agreement.

11.2.14 States should cooperate with each other and actively participate in

relevant regional and multilateral fora, such as the WTO in order to ensure

equitable, nondiscriminatory trade in fish and fishery products as well as wide

adherence to multilaterally agreed fishery conservation measures.

11.2.15 States, aid agencies, multilateral development banks and other relevant

international organizations should ensure that their policies and practices related

to the promotion of international fish trade and export production do not result

in environmental degradation or adversely impact the nutritional rights and

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

8/22

8

needs of people for whom fish is critical to their health and well-being and for

whom other comparable sources of food are not readily available or affordable.

11.3 Laws and regulations relating to fish trade

11.3.1 Laws, regulations and administrative procedures applicable to

international trade in fish and fishery products should be transparent, as simple

as possible, comprehensible and, when appropriate, based on scientific

evidence.

11.3.2 States, in accordance with their national laws, should facilitate

appropriate consultation with and participation of industry as well as

environmental and consumer groups in the development and implementation of

laws and regulations related to trade in fish and fishery products.

11.3.3 States should simplify their laws, regulations and administrative

procedures applicable to trade in fish and fishery products without jeopardizing

their effectiveness.

11.3.4 When a State introduces changes to its legal requirernents affecting trade

in fish and fishery products with other States, sufficient information and time

should be given to allow the States and producers affected to introduce, as

appropriate, the changes needed in their processes and procedures. In this

connection, consultation with affected States on the time frame for

implementation of the changes would be desirable. Due consideration should be

given to requests from developing countries for temporary derogations from

obligations.

11.3.5 States should periodically review laws and regulations applicable to

international trade in fish and fishery products in order to determine whether the

conditions which gave rise to their introduction continue to exist.

11.3.6 States should harmonize as far as possible the standards applicable tointernational trade in fish and fishery products in accordance with relevant

internationally recognized provisions.

11.3.7 States should collect, disseminate and exchange timely, accurate and

pertinent statistical information on international trade in fish and fishery

products through relevant national institutions and international organizations.

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

9/22

9

11.3.8 States should promptly notify interested States, WTO and other

appropriate international organizations on the development of and changes to

laws, regulations and administrative procedures applicable to international trade

in fish and fishery products.

ARTICLE 12 - FISHERIES RESEARCH

12.1 States should recognize that responsible fisheries require the availability of

a sound .scientific basis to assist fisheries managers and other interested parties

in making decisions. Therefore, States should ensure that appropriate research is

conducted into} all aspects of fisheries including biology, ecology, technology,

environmental science, economics, social science, aquaculture and nutritional

science. States should -ensure the availability of research facilities and provideappropriate training, staffing and institution building to conduct the research,

taking into account the special needs of developing countries.

12.2 States should establish an appropriate institutional framework to determine

the applied research which is required and its proper use.

12.3 States should ensure that data generated by research are analyzed, that the

results of such analyses are published, respecting confidentiality where

appropriate, and distributed in a timely and readily understood fashion, in order

that the best scientific evidence is made available as a contribution to fisheries

conservation, management and development. In the absence of adequate

.scientific information, appropriate research should be initiated as soon as

possible.

12.4 States should collect reliable and accurate data which are required to assess

the status of fisheries and ecosystems, including data on bycatch, discards and

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

10/22

10

waste. Where appropriate, this data .should be provided, at an appropriate time

and level of aggregation, to relevant States and subregional, regional and global

fisheries organizations.

12.5 States should be able to monitor and assess the state of the stocks under

their jurisdiction, including the impacts of ecosystem changes resulting from

fishing pressure, pollution or habitat alteration. They should also establish the

research capacity necessary to assess the effects of' climate or environment

change on fish stocks and aquatic ecosystems.

12.6 States should support and strengthen national research capabilities to meet

acknowledged scientific standards.

12.7 States, as appropriate in cooperation with relevant international

organisations, should encourage research to ensure optimum utilization of

fishery resources and stimulate the research required to support national policies

related to fish as food.

12.8 States should conduct research into, and monitor, human food supplies

from aquatic sources and the environment from which they are taken and ensure

that .here is no adverse health impact on consumers. The results of such

research should be made publicly available.

12.9 States should ensure that the economic, social, marketing and institutional

aspects of fisheries are adequately researched and that comparable data aregenerated for ongoing monitoring, analysis and policy formulation.

12.10 States should carry out studies on the selectivity of fishing gear, the

environmental impact of fishing gear on target species and on the behaviour of

target and non-target species in relation to such fishing gear as an aid for

management decisions and with a view to minimizing non-utilized catches as

well as safeguarding the biodiversity of ecosystems and the aquatic habitat.

12.11 States should ensure that before the commercial introduction of new types

of gear, a scientific evaluation of their impact on the fisheries and ecosystemswhere they will be used should be undertaken. The effects of such gear

introductions should be monitored.

12.12 States should investigate and document traditional fisheries knowledge

and technologies, in particular those applied to small-scale fisheries, in order to

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

11/22

11

assess their application to sustainable fisheries conservation, management and

development.

12.13 States should promote the use of research results as a basis for the setting

of management objectives, reference points and performance criteria, as well as

for ensuring adequate linkage, between applied research and fisheriesmanagement,

12.14 States conducting scientific research activities in waters under the

jurisdiction of another State should ensure that their vessels comply with the

laws and regulations of that State and international law.

12.15 States should promote the adoption of uniform guidelines governing

fisheries research conducted on the high seas.

12.16 States should, where appropriate, support the establishment ofmechanisms, including, inter alia, the adoption of uniform guidelines, to

facilitate research at the subregional or regional level and should encourage the

sharing of the results of such research with other regions.

12.17 States, either directly or with the support of relevant international

organizations, should develop collaborative technical and research programmes

to improve understanding of the biology, environment and status of

transboundary aquatic stocks.

12.18 States and relevant international organizations should promote and

enhance the research capacities of developing countries, inter alia, in the areas

of data collection and analysis, information, science and technology, human

resource development anti provision of research facilities, in order for them to

participate effectively in the conservation, management and sustainable use of

living aquatic resources.

12.19 Competent rotor national organizations should, where appropriate, render

technical and financial support to States upon request and when engaged in

research investigations aimed at evaluating stocks which have been previouslyunfished or very lightly fished.

12.20 Relevant technical and financial international organizations should, upon

request, support States in their research efforts, devoting special attention to

developing countries, in particular the least developed among them and small

island developing countries.

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

12/22

12

ARTICLE 11 AND 12: IMPLEMENTATION

CCRF Article 11 deals with post-harvest practices and trade, and is also

relevant to aquaculture. Responsible fish utilization is one of the main chapters

of this article, claiming the consumer's' right to safe, wholesome and

unadulterated fish and fishery products (see also FAO, 1998d). It refers to the

work of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission and calls on States to

promote the implementation of quality standards agreed therein. Those involved

in the processing and marketing of fish and fishery products are encouraged to

reduce post-harvest losses and waste, to improve the use of by-catch to the

extent that this is consistent with responsible fisheries management practices

and to use resources such as water and energy, in particular wood, in an

environmentally sound manner. The manufacture of value-added fishery

products by developing countries is advocated and States are requested to

ensure that domestic and international trade in fishery products accord with

sound conservation and management practices. This latter remark points

towards the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Convention can limit, regulate and prohibit trade

in these species and products there from if they are listed in one of the Annexes.

During the consultations leading to the CCRF, there was a debate of the FAO

membership which was related to the remaining two chapters of Article 11

(Responsible International Trade, and Laws and Regulations relating to Fish

Trade), and which was strongly influenced by the intention not to create clauseswhich would contrast with provisions issued under the Agreements leading to

the Establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and to make it clear

that the formulation of trade rules is the prerogative of the WTO. The Code also

states that policies and practices related to the promotion of international fish

trade and export production should not result in environmental degradation or

adversely impact the nutritional rights and needs of people for whom fish is

critical to their health and well-being and for whom other comparable sources of

food are not readily available or affordable.

According to the Code, laws, regulations and administrative procedures

applicable to international fish trade should be transparent, as simple as

possible, comprehensible and, when appropriate, based on scientific evidence.

They should be reviewed periodically and simplified without jeopardizing their

effectiveness. In cases where regulations are changed, sufficient time should be

allowed for preparing the implementation of the Code and consultation with

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

13/22

13

affected countries would be desirable. In this connection the Code stipulates that

due consideration be given to requests from developing countries for temporary

derogation from obligations.

In summing up, the Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries was adopted by

FAO Member Governments in 1995 and is considered as the practical

foundation on which to establish sustainable fisheries and aquaculture in the

future. The Codes structure and its different components correspond roughly to

different groups of stakeholders (fishermen, managers, processors, traders, fish

farmers and scientists). The FAO Fisheries Department has been producing a

number of Technical Guidelines to assist those concerned in the implementation

and adaptation of the recommendations of the Code ofConduct (FAO, 1996a, b,

1997, 1998d). Such guidelines could be complemented as required by specific

technical protocols, codes of practice, instruction manuals, best management

practices, etc.

Responsible Post-harvest Practices and Trade

The Regional Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia:

Responsible Post-Harvest Practices and Trade, serves as reference in identifying

directions and priority actions for the implementation of Article 11 (Postharvest

Practices and Trade) of the CCRF. Considering that traditional fish products in

the ASEAN region still represent a significantly high amount of total fish

utilization, the Guidelines also aimed to address this concern under its threemain topics: responsible fish utilization, responsible international trade, and

laws and regulations related to fish trade. The Guidelines also incorporated

relevant provisions of the Resolution and Plan of Action for Food Security for

the ASEAN Region. Coordinated by the SEAFDEC Marine Fisheries

Department (MFRD), the Guidelines was prepared after a series of

consultations with core experts from SEAFDEC and ASEAN Member

Countries. It aims to achieve food security and promote trade in domestic,

intraregional and international markets, considering that only few countries in

the region have the capability to develop food safety and quality assurance intheir fish products especially those intended for the foreign markets.

1. Moving towards a regional fisheries management mechanism

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

14/22

14

The recommendation of the ASEAN-SEAFDEC MemberCountries during the

2006 Consultation in Phuket, Thailand on the establishment of a Regional

Fisheries Management Body as a major long-term policy issue or area for

collaboration, gained impetus upon its approval by the 39th Meeting of the

C

ouncil Meeting in 2007 Siem Reap,C

ambodia.

2. Willingness to cooperate in bordering (or trans-boundary) water areas

A consensus to promote cooperation between neighbouring countries on the

integration of habitat and fisheries management (Refugia) was reached under a

common management mechanism. The areas recommended include the Gulf of

Thailand, Andaman Sea, South China Sea and Sulu/Sulawesi Sea. With the

cooperation of Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand, the project successfully

initiated the process in two locations:

Trad Koh Kong (Thailand Cambodia)

Kampot Phu Quoc (Cambodia Vietnam)

3. Management of Fishing Capacity in Southeast Asia

Since management of fishing capacity is considered the fisheries management

issue and considering the regional nature of fishing operation and migration of

fish workers, regional cooperation could be attained upon addressing the

following issues:

As there is no aggregate data on fishing capacity at national or regional level

and that available information is more site-specific and relates to projects rather

than statistical information, the lack of statistics with respect to fishing

capacity especially at small-scale level remains a critical problem

Fishing capacity of large-scale fisheries to be addressed in parallel with small-

scale fisheries

The need for alternative, supplementary income opportunities to facilitate exit

from fishery

Transboundary and regional aspects of Illegal, Unregistered and Unreported

fishing (IUU)

Social aspects of reduction and management of fishing capacity

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

15/22

15

4. Successful promotion of cooperation and innovative approaches to

management

Establishing cooperation with other institutions and projects is crucial to seek

broad cooperation even beyond the sphere of fisheries agencies for long-term

results. Such cooperation is important in addressing the social, environmental,

economical and legal aspects in order to develop innovative approaches for

improved regional cooperation. Thus, the project has been instrumental in:

Promoting integration of fisheries management into habitat management

Initiating activities on providing incentives to fishermen that are fishing in a

sustainable way (eco-labelling)

Improving coordination between fisheries, environmental and other agencies,

including involvement of NGOs at various levels

Introducing adaptive management through dialogue among projects and

institutions

Safety and Quality Requirements

The food and feed scares of last decades (bovine spongiform encephalopathyBSE, dioxins, avian flu, SARS, foot and mouth disease) have exposed the

weakness in traditional food control systems.L

ikewise, the increasedglobalization of fish trade has highlighted the risk of cross-border transmission

of hazardous agents and the rapid development of aquaculture has been

accompanied by the emergence of food safety concerns, in particular residues ofveterinary drugs.

These developments have led to the need for the development of a food safetystrategy applicable throughout the entire fish food chain- from farm or sea to

table. This strategy must be scientifically based, adaptive and responsive tochanges in the food production chain. It is articulated around the use of riskanalysis to develop food safety objectives and standards and on the

implementation ofHazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems.

FAO/WHO has identified the following five needs for a strategy in support of a

food chain approach to food safety, including for fish and fishery products:

Fish safety and quality from a food chain perspective should incorporate the

three elements ofrisk analysis - assessment, management and communicationensuring an institutional separation of sciencebasedrisk assessment from risk

management.

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

16/22

16

Tracing techniques (traceability) from the primary producer (including

animal feed and medicines used in aquaculture), through post-harvest treatment,processing and distribution to the consumer must be improved.

Harmonisation of standards, implying increased development and wider useof internationally agreed, scientifically-based standards is necessary.

Equivalence in food safety systems achieving similar levels of protection

against fish-borne hazards and quality defects whatever means of control areused must be further developed.

Increased emphasis on risk avoidance or prevention at source within thewhole food chain from farm or sea to plate .

The implementation of the food chain approach requires an enabling policy anda regulatory environment at national and international levels with clearly

defined rules and standards, establishment of appropriate food control systemsand programmes at national levels, and provision of appropriate training and

capacity building. Development and implementation of Good Aquaculture

Practices (GAP), Good Hygienic Practices (GHP) and HACCP are required

in the food chain step(s)

.Government institutions should develop an enabling policy and a regulatory

environment, organize the control services, train personnel, upgrade the control

facilities and laboratories and develop national surveillance programs forrelevant hazards. The industry should adopt good practices and train personnel

to implement GAP, G HP and HACCP. The support institutions (academia,trade associations, private sector, etc.) should upgrade skills of personnel

involved in the food chain, conduct research on quality, safety and riskassessments, and provide technical support to stakeholders. Finally, consumers

groups and other NGOs should promote consumer education and informationand play a counterbalancing role to ensure that safety and quality is science

based and not driven only by political or economical considerations.

The globalization and further liberalization of world fish trade, while offeringmany benefits and

opportunities, also presents emerging safety and quality challenges. Improvedscientific tools must be adopted and novel flexible approaches to safety must besought to ensure that responsibility for consumer protection is effectively shared

along the food chain and that regulations and standards reflect the most current

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

17/22

17

scientific evidence. This requires significant resources which are not alwaysavailable, especially for small scale operations in developing countries.

Fish safety and quality assurance at the beginning of this third millenniumrequires enhanced levels of international co-operation in promoting

transparency, harmonisation, equivalency schemes and standards setting

mechanisms based on science. The SPS/TBT agreements of the WTO and the benchmarking role ofthe Codex alimentarius provide an international

reference in this respect.

Labelling and certification

Certification and labelling have become important competitive parameters to

access international fish markets. Not only must suppliers adhere to theregulatory requirements of importing countries, but additional labels or

certificates may also be required by the importer for commercial and marketing

reasons. In the same way, the supplier may also choose to apply particularlabels or undergo voluntary certification programmes in order to target specific

segments of consumers, thereby gaining a competitive advantage in marketniches.

Similarly, companies may choose to produce according to specific requirementsthat permit them to label their products as environmentally friendly or produced

in respect of certain social values. Examples of such labelling include: "organicproduction" labels, "fair trade" labels", "dolphin-safe tuna" labels or ecolabels

such as those of the Marine Stewardship Council MSC or Friend of the Sea FoS

. An eco-label is a tag or label placed on a product that certifies that the fish wasproduced in an environmentally friendly way. The label provides information at

the point of sale that links the product to the production process.

In fisheries, the increased interest in eco-labels results from the concerns aboutthe dramatic state of the worlds marine resources. The perceived failure of

governments to effectively manage marine resources has led to the developmentof alternative mechanisms for protecting marine life and promoting

sustainability. These are aimed at influencing the purchasing decisions of

consumers and the procurement policies of retailers. Eco-labels are one such

mechanism. Organizations developing and managing an ecolabel developstandards against which applicants wishing to use the label will be judged. Theyalso manage the accreditation and certification process, and market the label to

consumers to ensure recognition and demand for labelled products.

Other mechanisms used by NGOs include;

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

18/22

18

Publicity campaigns or organized boycotts or of certain species deemed to bethreatened such

as the Give Swordfish a Break campaign in the United States in the late1990s;

Consumer guides to influence consumers purchasing decisions, such as theBest Fish Guide

of the New Zealand Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or TheSustainable SeafoodGuide, produced by Eartheasy, Canada;

Putting pressure on retailers to introduce sustainable procurement policies forfish and seafood. This is perhaps most developed in the United Kingdom where

Greenpeace is working with large retailers and produces annual league table,Ranking of the sustainability of supermarkets seafood . Greenpeace also uses

naming and shaming strategies such as media-savvy protests outside retail

outlets.

These strategies can be seen in terms of a continuum from more reactive

mechanisms that highlight and shame bad practice, to more proactive

activities: encouraging consumers to purchase fish from sustainable stocks, andworking with retailers to improve their procurement policies, as well as

rewarding those that do with positive publicity. Buyers and retailers have in turnresponded by imposing private standards and certification back through the

supply chain, especially on producers and processors. These developments have

resulted in the proliferation of certification bodies and schemes designed totrace the origin of fish, its quality and safety, the environmental and/or social

conditions prevailing during fishing, aquaculture production, processing anddistribution (Washington and Ababouch, 2011).

But as standards, certification schemes and labels proliferate; both producers

and consumers are questioning their value. Producers in particular questionwhether these private standards and

certification schemes duplicate or complement government work. In addition

consumers ask if the private schemes really provide better protection for them

and the environment and/or contribute to social equity.

Many producers and exporting countries hold the view that sanitary standards

represent unjustified restrictions to trade, especially where they introducemeasures which duplicate those already applied by government authorities ofthe exporting country. This raises the issue of how to define boundaries between

public regulations dealing with food safety, animal health, environmental andsocial protection on the one hand and private market standards on the other?

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

19/22

19

And who is responsible for what and accountable to whom? While governmentsthat are seen to use standards as trade barriers can be challenged through the

rules of WTO, what international mechanism, or agreement, should be invokedto challenge private companies whose standards are judged to create technical

barriers to trade between countries? Several countries and industry associations

have raised serious concerns about the potential for private standards to havetrade limiting or trade distorting effects (WTO, 2008).

Proponents of private standards and certification schemes claim that they

encourage suppliers to force the use of responsible practices in fisheries andaquaculture. Opponents of such standards see them as a private sector attempt toreplace/duplicate governmental policy in fisheries and aquaculture. The key

issue is how private standards and certification schemes, if needed, can bereconciled with the public sectors responsibility to regulate the use of

responsible practices in fisheries and aquaculture, throughout the food chain.

These issues require a concerted international effort. A precondition for an

international understanding and an approach to dealing with this issue is betterknowledge. More must be known about the effects of private standards and

certification schemes. Such knowledge may make it possible to propose

solutions that will ensure coherence of private standards with WTO trademeasures.

It is also necessary to analyze if and how private standards are duplicating or

complementing the work of government authorities. Such an analysis will have

a particular focus on the effects that private standards and certification schemesare having on developing countries capacities to access markets

FISHERIES REASEARCH IN INDIA

(1)By catch Reduction devices :The growing concern on the bycatch due to commercial gear is taken in

to consideration and the development of new devices to be installed ormodification on the existing design of gear is the main thurst area . Central

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

20/22

20

Institute of Fishing Technology (CIFT) , Kochi is assigned with thedevelopment of TEDs , Fish eye , Fish window , Radial escapement devices .

(2)Development of selective gears :The CIFT has developed some

advanced variants of the trawl gear used by the traditional trawl fleet .This is to reduce the impact of fishing over the flora and fauna of the

aquatic system e.g. High end opening trawl , High speed demersal trawl ,Duplex and Triplex trawl , separator trawl , Large mesh opening trawl .

(3)Development of FADs : The Fish aggregating device is developed toreduce the fishing time and to flourish the fish stocks .

(4)Remote sensing of marine areas is done to determine the potentialfishing zone (PFZ) and to disseminate the data to the fishermen .

(5)Assessment of the coral reef ecosystem and the mangrove ecosystem .(6)Mechanisation effort for the fishig fleet to reduce the labour intensiveness

.

(7)Development of deep sea fishing fleet .(8)Development of more hygienic processing methods and their

complaiments to the national and international standards ,CONCLUSION

The code is the fundamental base on which the countries policies for trade of

fish and fishery products rely for their development . The non mandatory and

voluntary nature of the code gives the states the sufficient flexibility whileformulating their policies in accordance to the existing situations and scenarios.A wide variety of regulations and norms are adopted by different countries to

sustain their fisheries industries also research on fisheries is being carried out bygovernmental and non governmental agencies to reduce the harmfull effects of

fishing and post harvest activities .

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

21/22

21

References

www.FAO.org.in

Ababouch, L and El Marrakchi, A. 2009. Elaboration des semi-conserves

danchois: aspectsconomiques, techniques et hyginiques. FAO Document Technique sur les

Pches et lAquaculture No 525. Rome. 90 pp.

FAO, 2010. The state of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome. 197 pp.

FAO/WHO, 2011. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and

Benefits of FishConsumption (in press).

Gudmundsson, E., Asche, F., Nielsen, M. 2006. Revenue distribution throughthe seafood value chain FAO Fisheries circular No 1019. Rome, 42 pp.

Kelleher, K. 2005.Discards in the worlds marine fisheries. An update. FAO

Fisheries Technical

Paper. No. 470. Rome. 131p.

Kurien, J. 2006. Responsible fish trade and food security.FAO fisheriestechnical paper456. Rome Italy. 162 Pages.

Lewin GA, Schachter HM, Yuen D, Merchant P, Mamaladze V, Tsertsvadze A,2005. Effects of

omega-3 fatty acids on child and maternal health. Agency for HealthcareResearch and Quality

8/3/2019 Article 11 and 12

22/22

22

(AHRQ). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 1-11.

Martinez M, 1992. Tissue levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids during earlyhuman development. J Pediatr;120:S129-38.

MozaffarianD, Rimm EB. 2006. Fish intake, contaminants, and human health:evaluating the risks and the benefits. JAMA;296:1885-99.

OSullivan, G and bengoumi, J, 2008. Market penetration of developing country

seafood products in European retail chains. Globefish Research Programme.Volume 90. 48 p. FAO. Rome, Italy

World Trade Organization, 2008. Considerations relevant to private standards inthe field of animal health, food safety and animal welfare. G/SPS/GEN/822.

WTO, Geneva. Switzerland.

FAO/WHO, Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of

Fish Consumption;2011 (in press). Rome, Italy.

Washington, S and Ababouch, L. 2011. Private standards and certification infisheries and

aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture technical Paper 553. Rome, 181 pp

Sciortino, J.A., 2010. Fishing harbour planning, construction and management.

FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 539. Rome, FAO. 337p.

Ward A.R, 2007 Post harvest loss assessment in PP3 zones ofCameron, Chad,Gambia and Senegal:key learning.

FAO/DFID Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme Post harvestFisheries Livelihoods Pilot Project. SFLP-FAO, Cotonou, Benin. 60p.

Organisation forEconomic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1995.

Multilingual dictionary of fish and fishery products. Fishing News Books. 352

pages. London.