Behind the Signs—A Global Review of Fish Sustainability Information Schemes

Abstract

(197words)This paper presents the results of a global review of organisations that provide sustainable fisheries information -including ecolabels, recommendation lists and supermarkets -to consumers and supply chain intermediaries. It examined 17 organisations and key supermarkets that communicate on the sustainability of world fisheries and aquaculture products. Certification schemes assess a relatively small number of specific fisheries and indicate sustainability through labels. Recommendation lists cover more species and areas but in less detail. FAO guidelines for fisheries ecolabelling and aquaculture certification constituted the benchmarks with which improving conformance was found. However, significant variation in fisheries' assessment exists, affecting the accuracy and precision of information and advice provided. Inconsistent approaches and contradictory advice among certification schemes and recommendation lists potentially increase consumer confusion and 2 reduce their credibility. The review identifies seven critical attributes schemes must address -scope, accuracy, independence, precision, transparency, standardisation and costeffectiveness -and recommends that certification schemes and recommendation lists enhance their consistency and credibility through compliance with these attributes and FAO guidelines. Fish sustainability information schemes play an important role in securing a sustainable future for the oceans. Uptake of this review's recommendations should reduce consumer confusion and increase confidence in the benefits of sustainable purchasing.

Eco-certification of Farmed Seafood: Will it Make a Difference?

“…Until recently, the majority of seafood certification programs have been applicable mainly to capture fisheries, but the number of certification schemes targeting aquaculture is growing steadily ( Vandergeest 2007;Washington and Ababouch 2011) (Table 2). Key actors in the development of market-oriented standards include civil society and non-government organizations, governments, industry associations, retailers and supermarket chains and consumers concerned about food safety, and/or social and environmental impacts (Parkes et al 2010;Washington and Ababouch 2011). A number of organizations working toward eco-certification are promoting a life cycle perspective in all standards for certification (Pelletier and Tyedmers 2008) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14020 series requires that life cycle considerations are included when developing standards for an eco-label (Mungkung et al 2006).…”

“…This aspect has been analyzed before (Corsin et al 2007;WWF 2007;Parkes et al 2010), and we focus on one species group, shrimp and prawns, to indicate the implications of scope for overall environmental performance. The results suggest a tendency among the schemes investigated of a low-to-moderate level of inclusion of the selected impact categories (Table 3).…”

Whitefish wars: Pangasius, politics and consumer confusion in Europe

“…It also appears that the industry level assessment of the WWF recommendation list may contradict the logic of the auditable farm level PAD standards. This criticism reflects the difference between the narrow downstream valuechain scope of recommendations lists targeted at consumers as compared to standards systems which seek constructive engagement with the producer-base [22]. The implicit adoption of the precautionary principle, 'in defence of consumer interests' (WWF International pers.…”

Progress in designing and delivering effective fishing industry-science data collection in the UK

“…For instance, biological reference points have not been defined for several commercially important fin-and shell-fish, such as brown crab (Cancer pagurus, Cancridae) skates and rays (superorder: Batoidea), preventing the development of management plans (Tully et al, 2006;Pilling et al, 2008;Large et al, 2013). Many data poor (or data limited) stocks are deemed as a 'high risk' by the 5 supply chain, whose purchasing and sourcing policies do not allow them to source from such fisheries (Parkes et al, 2010;MRAG, 2010). No matter how sustainable such fisheries might be, whilst they continue to lack evidence they will remain off limits to many suppliers and retailers.…”