EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 29.06.2005 
COM(2005)275 final 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMI SSION TO THE COUNCIL, 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AN D THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND 
SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Launching a debate on a Community approach towards 
eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products 
   
(SEC(2005)840)  
. 
 
EN 2   EN COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMI SSION TO THE COUNCIL, 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AN D THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND 
SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Launching a debate on a Community approach towards 
eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products 
 
(Text with EEA relevance)  
1. I NTRODUCTION  
In December 1997 the Commission Co mmunication on the Future for the Market on Fisheries 
Products in the EU1 first addressed the n eed to discuss non-discr iminatory, voluntary eco-
certification schemes. In subsequent discussi ons, most Member States agreed that the 
Community should establish a common line but vi ews differed on how to implement it. In 
2002 the Commission adopted a Community Action Plan to integrate environmental 
protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy2 and announced its intention to 
launch a debate on the eco-labe lling of fisheries products.  
The objective of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy3 adopted in 2002 is to ensure 
exploitation of living aquatic resources in a way that pr ovides for sustainable economic, 
environmental and social condi tions. Progress on the implementation of the reform of the 
Common Fisheries Policy makes it necessary to address the question of  the introduction of 
eco-labelling schemes as a means of integrating environmental protection concerns into the 
fisheries sector. Moreover, the recent emergence of an increas ing number of "eco-labelled" 
products raises important questions with respect to competition, trade and consumer 
protection policies. 
Attention should also be given to ongoing discussions in international fora on eco-labelling. 
Work is currently underway in the FAO with re gards to the development of guidelines on eco-
labelling for fish and fisheries products from marine fisheries. Moreover, WTO members in 
the Doha Declaration, committed themselves to examine labelling requirements for environmental purposes within the framework of what was being examined by the Committee on Trade and Environment. 
The Commission would like to see that the most be  made of the potential benefits of credible 
eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products.  This would contribut e significantly to 
integrating environmental protection concerns into the fisheries sector. This Communication 
intends to launch an in-depth conceptual de bate about these topics  and to explore the 
possibilities of moving ahead. 
                                                
 
1 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - The future for the 
market on fisheries products in the European Union: responsibility, partnership and competitiveness. 
COM(1997)719 final of 16 December 1997. 
2 Communication from the Commission setting out a Community Action Plan to integrate environmental 
protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy. COM(2002)186 final of 28 May 2002. 
3 Council Regulation (EC) 2371/2 002 of 20 December 2002 concerni ng conservation and sustainable 
exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59). 
 
EN 3   EN 2. E CO-LABELLING SCHEMES  
2.1. Definition4 
An eco-labelling scheme entitles  a product to bear a distinctive logo, or st atement, by way of 
which consumers are assured that the product has been produced according to a given set of environmental standards, such as the sustainabi lity of the resource used as raw material, the 
environmental impact of the production method, or the recyclability of the product. The 
underlying idea is that if cons umers are properly informe d, their choice could possibly 
stimulate the promotion and consumption of environmentally friendly products. Thus, consumers can influence the behaviou r of producers and policy makers.  
The industrial and forestry sectors of today pos sess a large variety of certification and eco-
labelling schemes. The Community’s own eco-label award scheme
5 covers some 20 industrial 
product groups. However, it does not apply to food products, drinks and medicines.  
2.2. Eco-labelling schemes in the fisheries sector 
Supermarket chains and trading companies show a growing intere st in food products 
associated with sustainability considerations . This has created momentum in the fisheries 
sector with the development of private eco-lab elling schemes, some of which have found their 
place on the markets (e.g. the "Dolphin safe" or the "Marine Stewardship Council" labels). In 
addition to that, private initia tives are increasingly emerging, which come with a variety of 
environmental claims, the credibility of which is not always easy to ascertain6. 
2.2.1. "Dolphin-safe/Dolphin-f riendly" labelled tuna 
The most frequently cited, and possibly most controversial, case of eco-labelling in the 
fisheries sector is the “dolphi n-safe/dolphin-friendly”  labelled tuna. This label is meant to 
certify that the tuna was caught in a way that protects dolphins,  either based on the Agreement 
on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme (AIDCP), a multilateral Regional 
Fisheries Organisation, or in li ne with a programme promoted by the Earth Island Institute, a 
US based non-governmental organisation.  
Although “dolphin-safe/dolphi n-friendly” labelling st arted out as a techni cal regulation, it has 
ever since changed the market to such an extent  that tuna which is not labelled as "dolphin-
safe" is no longer acceptable in some countries . However, the AIDCP and the US norms are 
not complementary. As a matter of fact, the “dolphin-safe” label ba rs tuna caught in 
accordance with AIDCP standards from access to the US markets. This has given rise to an 
ongoing dispute between Mexico and the US. Attempts by the US administration to amend 
the US law to meet AIDCP requirements have been challenged in the US courts by some 
NGOs that consider the AIDCP meas ures not to be stringent enough.  
                                                 
4 see Annex I -1 for definitions, experience in other fields and technical details. 
5 Council and European Parliament Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of 17 July 2000 on a revised 
Community eco-label award scheme (OJ L 237, 21.9.2000, p. 1). 
6 See Annex I – 2. for further details. 
 
EN 4   EN The Community supports the voluntary AIDCP Do lphin Safe Certification scheme. After the 
implementation of the Tuna Tracking System7, the question is whethe r and how to implement 
the AIDCP certification scheme at Community le vel. A good many elements will need to be 
considered in this context. 
2.2.2. The Marine Stewardship Council eco-labelling scheme 
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), jointl y created in 1997 by Un ilever and the World 
Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) but now worki ng apart from them, has launched a large 
private eco-labelling initiative  designed to ensure that the product comes from well managed 
fisheries and has not contributed to the enviro nmental problem of over fishing.” To date, ten 
fisheries have been certified amongst which are four European fisherie s. Over 180 products 
around the world carry the MSC la bel. Twelve fisheries are cu rrently undergoing assessment, 
including the North Sea Herri ng and the Alaska Pollack. 
The process of developing the MSC principles ha s shown that there prove to be reserves on 
the side of developing countries , that fear that their products may be excluded from developed 
country markets. 
3. W ORK ON ECO -LABELLING IN INTERNATIONAL FORA  
3.1. Food and Agriculture Organisation 
In the framework of the FAO, the disc ussion on eco-labelling started at the 22nd session of the 
FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 1997, as a response to the creation of the MSC. Not 
much progress was made, mostly due to concer ns that eco-labelling would lead to new 
barriers to trade. Experts gene rally agreed, however, that if guidelines were developed, they 
should be consistent with the FAO Code  of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries8.  
At the 25th session of COFI in 2003, FAO was asked to  develop guidelines on eco-labelling 
for fish and fisheries products from marine fisheries. At the technical consultation in October 
2004 delegations showed for a keen interest to progress quickly w ith respect to the 
development of international guidelines for eco -labelling schemes. Considerable progress has 
been made, and a second technical consultatio n has been convened for before the COFI 
meeting. The final text of guidelin es has been adopted at the 26th session of the COFI in 
March 2005. The European Community has been  an active participant during this whole 
consultation process. 
3.2. World Trade Organisation 
In accordance with the comm itment under paragraph 32 (iii ) of the Doha Development 
Agenda (DDA) to give particular attention to labelling requirements for environmental 
purposes discussions have taken place in the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment 
since the Doha Ministerial in  2001. These discussions have focused on voluntary schemes 
                                                 
7 Council Regulation No 882/2003 of 19 May 2003 establishing a tuna tracking and verification system. 
(OJ L 127 , 23.5.2003, p. 1). 
8 Report twenty-third Session of the Committee on Fisheries (Rome, Italy, 15-19 February 1999),  FAO 
Fisheries Report . No. 595. 
 
EN 5   EN based on the life cycle approach9. The Community has suggested th at attention should be paid 
to a number of elements concerning the role and scope of eco-labelling schemes so as to enhance the mutual supportiveness of trad e, development and environmental policies
10. They 
have not yet reached a conclusion. 
4. O BJECTIVES FOR A COMMUNITY POLICY ON ECO-LABELLING FOR FISH AND 
FISHERY PRODUCTS  
The Commission views eco-labelling schemes as  a means of integrating environmental 
protection concerns into the fi sheries sector and supports the objectives generally associated 
with such a policy, in particular  
1) stimulating consumer awareness in view of  the environmental dimension of fishing and 
thereby  
2) encouraging environmental re sponsibility of both managers  and fishermen by making them 
more conscious of the environmental impact of fisheries.  
In that sense, market incentives such as eco-labelling schemes might induce producers to 
move towards more responsible fishing practi ces. The Commission ther efore takes the view 
that voluntary eco-labelling schemes should be  encouraged. However, the Commission also 
considers that the responsibility  to protect natural resources through regulation should remain 
with the public author ities and that, whilst eco-labels can  operate in support of sustainable 
fisheries, they should not repla ce governmental conservation policy.  
The Commissions is of the view that a cohe rent Community policy on eco-labelling for fish 
and fisheries products should be developed to a ddress the consequences of the emergence of 
disparate sets of eco-labels.  
Such a policy should aim to further : (1) Sustainable fisheries
11 and an adequate leve l of protection of the ecosystem: eco-
labelling schemes, if based on clearly define d criteria and appropriate indicators, can 
assist in both monitoring progress made on sustainability fish ing and in raising 
public awareness of sustainability issues; 
(2) A harmonised approach to eco-labelli ng schemes throughout the Community : 
consumers should be assured that all eco -labelling schemes within the Community 
follow basic similar guidelines and principles;  
(3) transparent and objective information of consumers : when purchasing, decisions are 
based in part on non-product-related charac teristics such as production methods and 
environmental impacts; clear and verifiable  information should be available in order 
                                                 
9 See Annex I-1. 
10 Document JOB(03)/130 of 27 June 2003. 
11 According to the Counc il Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and 
sustainable exploitation of fish eries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, Article 3 (e) 
"sustainable exploitation" means "the exploitation of a stock in such a way that the future exploitation 
of the stock will not be prejudiced and that it does not have a negative impact on the marine eco-
systems". 
 
EN 6   EN to avoid misleading claims; eco-labelling sche mes should also be in conformity with 
the general requirements of consumer polic y to ensure a high level of consumer 
protection in accordance with Article 153 of the Treaty; 
(4) Fair competition:  the use of misleading eco-labels  should be avoided and labels 
should be more than promotional tools for individual companies;  
(5) Open access:  all eco-labelling schemes should guarantee open access, without 
discrimination, and the cost to  be paid by participants s hould not be prohibitive for 
small and medium enterprises, or for the small-scale fisheries sector; and 
(6) Development and trade : priorities highlighted by the Community in the WTO to 
address the concerns of developing countri es should be given due consideration.  
5. A VAILABLE OPTIONS  
The main question for public authorities is how  far voluntary eco-label ling schemes should be 
subject to rules in order to pr otect public interest. Three opt ions seem to be available. 
5.1. Option 1: Non- action 
The first option to be envisaged is to do nothi ng. Eco-labelling schemes could then continue 
to develop freely on the market, without any inte rvention on the part of the public sector. Up 
to now, the Community has not taken up any measur es in this field. By way of consequence, a 
non-action option corresponds to the status quo.  
Advantages of a non-action option are as follows: 
• It would ensure a clear separation between, on the one hand, private sect or initiatives that 
are using aspects related to th e origins and manner of capture of fish in their marketing 
efforts, and, on the other hand, public sector activities aiming to ensure conservation and sustainable development of fisheries. The s ector would be responsible for the governance 
of eco-labelling systems. This could favour  a broader development of eco-labelling 
schemes.  
• Business-led voluntary schemes might be more  flexible and adaptable to changing 
circumstances. Public authorities would not be blamed for imposing additional constraints 
on the trade of fisheries products.  
• The need to guard against misleading claims and to promote adherence to best practices 
could be satisfied by raising th e public’s and the industrie’s awareness of sustainability.  
Disadvantages of the non-action option are as follows: 
• Without a guarantee of independe nt certification and accreditation, the re liability of the 
schemes would be questionable.  
• Unlike other labelling systems, such as or ganic labelling for ex ample, there is no 
consensus on what an eco-label in the fisherie s sector actually means. Some consider it to 
certify the sustainable management of fish st ocks; others focus on th e ecological impact of 
particular fishing techniques or on the fisher y production chain taken as a whole. In the 
 
EN 7   EN absence of minimum requirements for eco-labe lling schemes, some companies could make 
exaggerated and unjustifiable claims for their products.  
• There is a risk that different policies pursued by individual Member States in respect of 
eco-labels could fragment the Community mark et. In reaction to the emergence of eco-
labelled products in the Community market, some Member States or economic operators 
could wish to set their own standards for eco-l abelling. This could cause  barriers to the free 
circulation of goods. 
• If eco-labelling schemes are considered as th e exclusive domain of the private sector, any 
public financial intervention could be viewed  by partners who are not subject to the 
scheme as a public subsidy, creating trade dist ortion. Such intervention could then lead to 
complaints by developing countries . Public authorities could also  find it difficult to provide 
developing countries with fina ncial and technical assistance  when schemes are controlled 
solely by the private sector.  
The Commission believes that the potential ri sks arising from the absence of a clear 
Community approach to the mark eting of eco-labelled products should be prope rly addressed. 
Rather than having to deal ex-post with c onflicting or inadequate schemes and with the 
ensuing adverse effects on the ma rkets and/or the sound conserva tion of fish stocks, it would 
make sense for the Community to pursue a more holistic common approach from the outset. Therefore, the Commission would not r ecommend to pursue the non-action option. 
5.2. Option 2: Creating a single Communi ty eco-labelling scheme for fish and 
fishery products 
It has been suggested that th e Community should set up its ow n comprehensive eco-labelling 
schema managed by public authorities or their nominees. Under such a single scheme, public 
authorities would be involved at  all stages of the development, operation and control of the 
scheme. 
Three principal arguments are advanced for this approach: 
• Because of the potential for overlap be tween eco-labelling assessments and public 
management of stocks, a single Community eco -labelling scheme woul d serve to reassert 
the prerogatives of public authorities in the management of fisheries resources; 
• Private eco-labelling schemes should be restri cted, as they could disrupt the market by 
differentiating between groups of products, e.g. cer tification of fisheries irrespective of the 
existence of other fisheries on the fish stock; 
• A single eco-labelling scheme w ould avoid confusion arising fr om competing eco-labelling 
schemes and ensure the credib ility of one scheme through higher environmental standards, 
independent guarantees and added authority. 
The Commission is not convinced by these ar guments. Competing ec o-labelling schemes 
would not necessarily have an e ffect of confusion as long as the assessment is made in a 
transparent and non-biased manner and the crite ria applied are clearl y communicated to the 
consumer. 
 
EN 8   EN In addition, a publicly managed single eco-label ling scheme would present a number of other 
problems: 
• The responsibility of public authorities to protect natura l resources through regulation 
could be obscured by their managing a supplem entary voluntary certification system for 
some stocks or types of fish ing only. If the required sta ndard for a single Community eco-
label were mere compliance with Community regulations, it would not provide the product 
differentiation that consumers are looking for.  In actual fact, an eco-labelling scheme 
would carry with it added value only if it were more demanding than mere compliance 
with applicable legislation. Otherwise, some might be led to believe  that the legislation 
itself was wanting or even "sub-standard". 
• If the Community wished to create its own eco-labelling scheme, it would have to decide 
for each fishery what an eco-label should certif y. In the absence of consensus on any single 
criterion of environmental impact this could give  rise to controversy a nd lead to situations 
where the public authorities concerned become  entangled in contradiction between their 
management policy and certification standard . Whatever criterion is used, there will 
always be “winners” and “losers”. It could fo r instance be that many Community fisheries, 
which are outside safe biological limits, would not be eligible for an eco-label for some 
time. Public authorities would find it diffi cult to assume responsibility for this. 
• A publicly-managed comprehensive scheme woul d also imply signific ant public costs in 
order to provide the necessary administrative resources for assessment, certification and compliance verification. This, alone, may make it a non-feasible option. 
Incidentally, the fact that many fish stocks within the Community waters are outside safe 
biological limits would produce a situation where a reference to "sustainable exploitation", as 
laid down in Article 3 (e) of Council Regula tion (EC) No 2371/2002 (s ee above footnote 10), 
might create advantages for products imported fr om countries that have a longer history of 
management under the precautionary approach. 
The Commission considers that creating a single publicly admini stered eco-labelling scheme 
for fisheries products is neither appropriate or pr actical. If the private se ctor sees advantages 
in and wishes to take the risk of establishing  eco-labelling schemes, it should be free to do so, 
provided that it does not undermine major public policy objectives such as  fair competition, 
objective information and the sound conserva tion and management of fish stocks. 
5.3. Option 3: Establishing minimum re quirements for voluntary eco-labelling 
schemes 
A third option would be for the Community to  specify a set of minimum requirements for 
voluntary demand-led eco-labelling schemes. 
Eco-labelling schemes could thus freely develo p through public and/or private initiatives as 
long as they comply with the minimum require ments. The involvement of public authorities 
would be limited to the registration of eco-lab elling schemes, and the verification of their 
compliance with the minimum requirements. Th ese requirements shoul d cover technical as 
well as procedural and institutional aspects (see Annex II). 
Key advantages of this approach are: 
 
EN 9   EN • It would allow eco-labelling schemes substantial flexibility and diversity to demonstrate to 
the consumer that the behaviour  of either the fishing industry or fisheries managers 
contributes to sustainability. Thus eco-labelli ng would fully play its role as a commercial 
incentive and would encourage better governance by the fisheries sector;  
• It would provide a "safety-net" of conditions designed to avoid the risk of distortion of 
competition or misinformation and to offer appropriate guarantees for consumers; 
• It would serve as an incentive to pursue high -standard environmental objectives, to ensure 
that the most significant aspects of sustaina bility are being properl y addressed, and to 
enhance the credibility and consis tency of eco-labelling schemes; 
• Eco-labelling schemes could thus be adapted to the fishery and/or the economic partner 
concerned, as for instance small and medium enterprises, or developing countries. Schemes 
would therefore be more accessible and less co stly for the industry to implement; and 
• Schemes already in operation coul d be more easily integrated. 
In contrast, the main disadvantage of this option is that what it gains in  flexibility it may lose 
in impact. 
• Minimum requirements have to be based on the current experience in conservation policy. 
As multi-annual management plans are not yet applied to every fishery, minimal criteria 
may not, at first, be too demanding, comp ared to the Community conservation policy, 
without being discriminatory. Cr iteria will have to be revi ewed based on the experience 
and scientific knowledge gained. The requir ement level of eco-labelling schemes would 
thus need to be progres sively upgraded over time; 
• There would be no guarantee that all the eco-labels on the market would address 
sustainability in the same way. Some scheme s could focus on fishery management, while 
others would put particular emphasis on the protection of the ecosystem. This could be 
compensated by way of adequate information of the consumer; 
• The monitoring of eco-labelling schemes requi res specific skills in the management and 
operation of certification schemes. Fisherie s management authorities will need to 
familiarise themselves accordingly; 
• In any event, the Commission will have to exercise its supervisory powers to ensure 
compliance with relevant Community law in this field. 
6. C ONCLUSION  
Given that eco-labelling is now becoming a significant phenomenon in the Community 
market for fisheries products, it is time to ha ve a debate and estab lish whether or not a 
common approach should be envisaged. 
It is clear that eco-labelling is a multi-faceted topic and that, therefore, a variety of questions 
will have to be considered as the intended debate follows its course. 
The debate will have to touch upon key questions, like: 
 
EN 10   EN • What should an eco-labelling scheme certify: a fishery, a fishing method, anything other 
component? Should therefore single issue labels be considered as an integral part of an 
eco-labelling policy? 
• How to ensure an approach that is devoid of  contradictions whilst simultaneously offering 
a high degree of voluntarism and feasibility ? 
• How to fully use the potential of eco-labell ing schemes for the promotion of sustainable 
fisheries, while yielding real  benefits for fishermen, pr ocessors and consumers ?  
• Should the approach be more resu lt oriented or means oriented? 
Yet the overall objective remains to ensure a genuine Community approach to eco-labelling of 
fish and fisheries products refl ecting best practice in this field. It is also the intention to 
reaffirm the Community’s strong commitment to sust ainability in the fields of the capture and 
use of fish. By means of such an approach, co llaborative work with the fishing industry to 
encourage shared stewardship of the resource will also be a must.  
The Commission believes that, all in all, the third option of establishing minimum 
requirements for voluntary eco-labelling schemes w ould be the most appropriate one at this 
juncture. This option would offer enough flexibili ty and would be proportionate in terms of 
costs. It would make it possibl e to take appropriate action fo r greater sustainability, while 
allowing a gradual approach. It would also offer adequate protection to consumers.  
The Commission invites the Counc il, the European Parliament  and the European Economic 
and Social Committee to debate the issues ra ised in this Communication. Consultation with 
the EEA members with the aim of ensuring a common approach will also be necessary, given their strong interest in this issue. Furthermor e, the Commission also intends to consult with 
stakeholders, mainly through the Advisory Co mmittee on Fisheries and Aquaculture and, in 
parallel, to carry out scientific and technical support work . This should provide enhanced 
knowledge destined to be fed into  the debate and, if ever neede d, to form the basis of impact 
assessments. 
As a follow-up to the debate on this Comm unication, the Commissi on may come forward 
with appropriate legislative proposals. 
 
EN 11   EN ANNEX I  
General aspects on eco-labelling 
1. H OW ECO-LABELLING SCHEMES WORK  
The International Standard Organisation (IS O) distinguishes betw een three types of 
environmental labels and declaration. Ec o-labelling schemes fall under type I - 
environmental labelling (ISO 14024). Thes e are voluntary programs, designed to 
reduce environmental effects by promoting market-driven demand for and supply of 
products which are verified by a third part y. An eco-label should therefore indicate 
that an independent person or  organisation has verified th at the product meets a set of 
meaningful and consistent standards for environmental protection. Type II - self-
declared environmental claims (ISO 14021) , which are made without independent 
third party certification, and type I II - environmental de claration (ISO 14025 ) are not 
relevant in the current context. 
Eco-labelling schemes involve three main procedural and institutional features: 1) 
the setting of a certification standard, 2) the accreditation of i ndependent certifying 
bodies and 3) the certification that the pr oduct meets the required standard, all along 
the production and distribution chain. There are a number of possible options for the 
shaping of such a scheme, where each la yer can be managed by public authorities, 
private entities or a combination of the two. In the fisheries sector, eco-labelling schemes have up to now been entirely managed by the private sector. 
Eco-labelling schemes are well established in the industrial sector (for example 
textiles or detergents). Th ey have been successful in raising awareness of the 
environmental impact of industrial activ ity. The Community’s own eco-label award 
scheme
12 aims to promote industrial products  which have the potential to reduce 
negative environmental impact, as compared  to other products in the same product 
group. This scheme covers some 20 industr ial product groups, but does not apply to 
food products, drink and medicines. A large variety of certification and eco-labelling 
schemes have also been devel oped in the forestry sector. 
In the food sector, Community measures  on organic producti on of agricultural 
products13 set out requirements on production, labelling and inspection. However, 
this has no connection with an eco-labelli ng scheme. In any event, products from 
wild animals such as game and fisheries pr oducts are excluded fr om the scope of the 
regulation. 
Terms and definitions (from: Report of the FAO expert consultation on the 
development of international guidelines for eco-labelling of fish and fisheries 
products from marine capture fisher ies, Rome, Italy, 14 – 17 October 2003)  
                                                 
12 Council and European Parliament Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of 17 July 2000 on a revised 
Community eco-label award scheme (OJ L 237, 21.9.2000, p. 1).  
13 Council Regulation (EC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products 
and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1). 
 
EN 12   EN • Accreditation: Procedure by which an au thoritative body gives formal recognition 
that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks. ( Based on ISO/IEC 
Guide 2: 1996, 12.11 ) 
• Accreditation body: Body that conducts a nd administers an accreditation system 
and grants a ccreditation. ( Based on ISO Guide 2, 17.2 ) 
• Accreditation system: System that has it s own rules of procedure and management 
for carrying out accreditation. ( Based on ISO Guide 2, paragraph 17.1 ) 
Note – Accreditation of certificati on bodies is normally awarded following 
successful assessment and is followe d by appropriate surveillance.  
• Certification: Procedure by which a thir d party gives written or equivalent 
assurance that a product, process or serv ice conforms to specified requirements. 
Certification may be, as appropriate, ba sed on a range of in spection activities 
which may include continuous insp ection in the production chain. ( Based on ISO 
Guide 2, 15.1.2 and Principles for Food Import and Export Certification and 
Inspection, CAC/GL 20 ) 
• Certification body: Body that conducts certification. A cer tification body may 
oversee certification activities carried  out on its behalf by other bodies. ( Based on 
ISO Guide 2, 15.2 ) 
• Chain of Custody: The concept that all re levant steps in the production chain have 
been inspected or certified as appropriate and that a system of tracking of certified 
products is in place. ( Based on IFOAM. 2002. IFOAM Accreditation Criteria for 
bodies certifying organic production and processing ) 
• Life cycle approach: A methodology co nsidering environmental impacts 
associated with any phase of the product life from the delivery or generation of 
natural resources to the fina l disposal", including use and disposal of the product. 
The extent to which the life cycle is c onsidered may vary depending on the type 
of environmental label or declaration, the nature of the claim and the product 
category. ( based on ISO 14021) The life cycle approach is not considered 
applicable with regard to eco -labelling for fisheries products 
• Standard: Document approved by a recogni zed organization or arrangement, that 
provides, for common and repeated use, ru les, guidelines or characteristics for 
products or related proce sses and production methods, w ith which compliance is 
not mandatory under international trade ru les. It may also include or deal 
exclusively with terminology, symbols,  packaging, marking or labelling 
requirements as they apply to a pr oduct, process or  production method. ( Based on 
TBT agreement, Annex 1, para.2 ) 
• Standard-setting organization or arrangeme nts : Organization or arrangement that 
has recognized activitie s in standardization. ( Based on ISO Guide 2, paragraph 
4.3) 
 
EN 13   EN 7. E CO-LABELLING SCHEMES IN THE FISHERIES SECTOR  
Minimum labelling requirements such as country of origin, wild/harvested fish, 
health standards or other regulatory meas ures in respect of product quality have 
nothing to do with eco-labelling requireme nts and consequently are not envisaged 
hereafter. 
7.1. The "Dolphin-safe/Dolphin-friendly" labelled tuna 
The terms “dolphin-safe/dolphin-friendly”  are used by both the Agreement on the 
International Dolphin Conser vation Programme (AIDCP)14 and by a programme 
promoted by the Earth Island Institute15.  
The dolphin-safe certification of the AIDCP gives access to the voluntary use of a 
“dolphin-safe” certificate or label for tuna caught withou t any mortality or serious 
injury to dolphins in the course of the fishing operations. The Earth Island Institute 
system sets even stricter criteria. It is based on the 1990 US Dolphin Protection 
Consumer Information Act, which prevents tu na sold in the US from being labelled 
as "dolphin-safe" if the tuna is caught with  purse seine nets. These nets are used with 
the intention of chas ing and encircling dolphins wh ich tend to congregate above 
schools of tuna in the Eastern Tropical Paci fic Ocean. A first attempt to ease the US 
law in 1999 was challenged in court by Ea rth Island Institute. In December 2002, the 
attempt to amend the US law to meet the AIDCP requirements was again challenged in the US courts by some NGOs, who c onsider the AIDCP measures not to be 
stringent enough. 
Although “dolphin-safe/dolphin- friendly” labelling star ted out as a technical 
regulation, it has changed the market profoundly. Today there are many privately 
labelled tins of tuna. with such labelli ng becoming the norm in certain markets and 
sometimes leads to confusion. A WWF survey  in 8 European countries identified no 
less than 26 different claims. 
This has obvious consequences on the internat ional tuna market, as tuna which is not 
labelled "dolphin-safe" is no longer accepted in some countries and therefore has to 
find other trade outlets. The “dolphin-safe” label bars tuna caught in accordance with 
AIDCP measures from access to the US ma rkets. This has given rise to an ongoing 
dispute between Mexico and US. 
The Community supports the voluntary AIDC P Dolphin Safe Certification scheme. 
After the implementation of the Tuna Tracking System
16, the question is whether and 
how to implement the AIDCP certifica tion scheme at Community level.  
                                                 
14 IATTC –Tuna tracking and AIDC P Dolphin Safe Certification 
 http://www.iattc.org/  
Certification programme for tuna fished according to the procedures for AIDCP Dolphin Safe Tuna 
certification (last amended June 2004). 
15 Earth Island Institute - International Marine Mammal Project -“Dolphin safe” tuna:  
http://www.earthisland.org/immp/  
Certification programme for tuna fished according to the international “Dolphin safe” tuna standard , 
developed by Earth Island Institute. 
 
EN 14   EN 7.2. The Marine Stewardship Council eco-labelling scheme 
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), join tly created in 1997 by Unilever and the 
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), ha s launched a large private eco-labelling 
initiative that assesses the e nvironmental impact of fishing17. The MSC has 
established general principles and criteria, which are used to assess individual stocks 
eligible for certification.  
The process of developing the MSC principles  has shown that there exist reserves on 
the side of developing countries, countries  that fear that their products may be 
excluded from developed country markets.  In its Annual Report of 2003, the MSC 
refers to a Member State of the Community  and states that “fisheries wishing to 
engage with the MSC programme are eligible for grants” from the Member State concerned. This information has reinforced  the concerns of developing countries 
which consider this to be a discrimina tory measure, preventing free access to eco-
labelling schemes. 
Species concerned: 
• Certified fisheries
 (as on 31.07.2004): Burry Inlet co ckles (EU), South African 
hake, Thames herring (EU), New Zealand hoki, Mexican Baja California red rock 
lobster, Western Australian rock lobster,  South West mackerel handline fishery 
(EU), Loch Terridon nephrops (EU), Alas ka salmon, South Georgia toothfish 
• Fisheries undergoing assessment:  Bering Sea and Aleutian Island Pacific Cod - 
Freezer Longline; Chilean Industrial Hake Fishery; US Pacific Halibut Alaska, 
Washington and Oregon; Pacific Halibut  Bristish Columbia, Canada; North Sea 
herring ; Hastings Fishing Fleet Pelagic Fishery Macker el and Herring; Australian 
Mackerel Icefish; Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska pollock 
fisheries; Lake Hjälmaren Pikeperch; Ne t fishery; Sablefish fishery; Lakes and 
Coorong fisheries, South Au stralia (Mulloway, Cockle , Golden perch, Yellow-
eyed mullet); British Columbia Salmon fishery; Hastings Fishing Fleet Dover Sole Fishery 
7.3. The "Arrangement for the Voluntary Cert ification of Products of Sustainable 
Fishing" by the Nordic Council 
In 2000, a technical working group of the Nordic Council of Ministers developed 
criteria for an environmental label based on an assessment of the sustainability of the fisheries. The report, as adopted in August 2001
18, identified a number of verifiable 
criteria that concentrate on the proce ss of fisheries management by the public 
authorities. No fisheries have been certified  to date. At the international level, the 
Nordic Council has initiated a debate on establishing interna tional eco-labelling 
guidelines in the FAO. 
                                                                                                                                                         
16 Council Regulation (EC) No 882/2003 of 19 May 2003 establishing a tuna tracking and verification 
system. (OJ L 127 , 23.5.2003, p. 1). 
17 http://www.msc.org  
18 “An arrangement for the Voluntary Certification of Products of Sustainable Fishing”, Nordic Technical 
Working Group on Fisheries Ecolabelling Criteria, Final Report, Copenhagen, June 21, 2000. 
 
EN 15   EN 7.4. Other private "logos" present on the market 
Unilever Fish Sustainability Initiative 
http://www.unilever.com/environm entsociety/sustainability/fish/  
This Unilever program aims at guiding their internal selection of sources of whitefish 
supply. Fisheries have been classified fr om "sustainable" to "not sustainable" 
according to 5 criteria, each criteria being quoted by a green /orange/red light system.  
Carrefour - Logo “Pêche responsable” 
Carrefour's own claim to be used on Icelandic cod as from September 2004 
(announcement at Seafood International exhibition, May 2004) 
7.5. Other considerations 
In parallel to the development of eco-label ling schemes, certain supermarket chains 
have committed themselves to restrict their supply of fish to sustainable fisheries. 
They have started to develop and join certification program s to this end. In addition 
to that, some others have even decided not to offer fish for sale at all.  
On the other hand, it may be assumed  that consumer interest in environmentally -
friendly products could contribute to a growing market for fisheries products. It 
remains difficult to quantify the demand fo r eco-labelled products, as recent studies 
show certain limits in this regard. In a recent study in the US, the interrogated 
consumers indicated a preference for eco-lab elled products; in contrast to that, an 
analysis of the shopping basket showed that the price was the first criterion of choice. 
In other terms, the success of an eco-labell ing scheme would depend, at least in part, 
on the additional costs which it carries with it. Moreover, consumer interest varies 
from country to country, depending on market  peculiarities and public perception of 
the concept of sustainability. 
 
EN 16   EN ANNEX II  
Minimum requirements for eco-label ling schemes for fishery products 
1. P RECISE , OBJECTIVE AND VERIFIABLE CRITERIA  
The certification standard should rest on preci se, objective and verifi able criteria and, 
where possible, be based on international standards.  
Eco-labelling schemes should deliver what they promise and not promise what they 
cannot deliver. The award of the eco-label should be based on cer tification standards 
and criteria that guarantee that the product meets the claims made. Criteria must be 
objective and precise, in order to forestall allegations of subjectivity. Criteria must 
also be verifiable, i.e. they must reflect  measurable elements, and be monitored by 
way of appropriate and recognised indica tors. A criterion that “the fishery is 
conducted in a sustainable manner”, without  any further objective parameters, would 
be obviously difficult to verify. On the ot her hand, requiring that "the fishery is 
subject to a management plan base d on the precautiona ry approach" and  indicating 
the specific features of the manageme nt plan that are required under the 
precautionary approach would be objective,  precise and verifiable. Using "effort 
stays below F MSY" as a criterion is even more st ringent and would allow for more 
precise measurement of the ach ievements of the scheme.  
Furthermore, certification standard and crit eria should be subject  to appropriate and 
participatory consultation of interested  parties. Finally, wherever relevant 
international standards and/ or generally accepted standards for the conservation and 
management of living marine resources exis t, they should be used as a reference-
point for eco-labelling criteria. One such reference-point is the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.  
8. I
NDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY  
Eco-labelling schemes should be based on independent assessment and ensure the 
accurate identification of the product throughout the ch ain, “from the net to the 
plate”. Appropriate procedures, includi ng appeal and complaint procedures, should 
be in place.  
In order to protect consumers and the fishing industry, an eco-labelling scheme 
should be reliable and credible. To this end, the standa rd-setting body, the 
accreditation body and the cert ification bodies should be independent from one 
another. Without a proper separation of their respective responsibilities, the 
independence and integrity of eco-labe lling schemes cannot be guaranteed. 
Accreditation and certification bodies and their respective procedures should also 
comply with the relevant international ISO standards. 
In practice, eligibility for an eco-label has to be assessed against the relevant 
certification standard by independent cer tifying bodies. The certification process 
should be based on a clear assessment pro cedure and should cover both the fishery 
 
EN 17   EN and the post-harvest chain so that eco-labelli ng can be seen to be fair to all producers 
and provide credible guarantees for the consumer. A chain of custody would then 
have to be constructed by a description of  the technical means which ensure adequate 
traceability all the way thr ough to the final consumer. 
Where levels of performance are set, either  for a fisheries management system, a fish 
stock or a fishing vessel, they should be  capable of being adequately monitored. 
After the initial assessment, and in order to uphold the credibility of the scheme for 
consumers and its economic benefits fo r fishermen, there should be a regular 
evaluation to verify that th e product continues to  meet the requirements and to ensure 
a regular validation of the criteria used.  
9. O PEN ACCESS  
Eco-labelling schemes should not discriminate in terms of access to the certification 
process. 
With regard to international trade, eco-la belling schemes should in no case lead to a 
distortion of trade or competition. Su ch schemes should not be unfairly 
discriminatory as to which fisheries, whic h vessels or which products are eligible for 
certification. Eco-labelling schemes should be  open to all products marketed within 
the Community, whatever their provenanc e, in order to comply with the 
Community’s WTO obligations under the T echnical Barriers to Trade Agreement. 
They should not discriminate between domestic goods and imports, or between 
products from different trading partners.  
Developing countries contribu te substantially to the Co mmunity’s supplies of fish 
and fisheries products. The use of eco-labell ing schemes could thus be an additional 
opportunity for them to get added value fo r their products. Speci al arrangements and 
technical and financial assistance would allo w them to participate in such schemes. 
Fisheries Partnership Agreements could be  appropriate vehicles to this end.  
Consideration must also be given to the potential difficu lties that small and medium 
enterprises (SMEs) could encounter in acceding to eco-labelling schemes. Stock 
assessment and criteria monitoring are of ten highly demanding in terms of data 
quantity and data quality . This implies significant costs, which may go beyond the 
means of SMEs. The Commission would theref ore encourage the use of alternative, 
less data demanding, methods for stock a ssessment where SMEs are concerned. The 
schemes should however provide for equal guarantee of sustainability for the 
fisheries concerned.  
Finally, it could also be the case that eco-labelling schemes already in operation 
encounter difficulties in complying with mini mal requirements set. In such a case a 
reasonable delay should be foreseen  for adaptation if ever needed. 
10. C ONTROL OF ECO -LABELLING SCHEMES  
Eco-labelling schemes should be properly cont rolled, in order to ensure that they 
comply with the minimal requirements, that  certification is sa tisfactory and that the 
information provided to consumers is accurate. 
 
EN 18   EN Adequate controls will reinforce the cred ibility of schemes for consumers and offer 
additional guarantees to the fishermen that the schemes are applie d in an independent 
and non-discriminatory manner. The m onitoring and control of the Common 
Fisheries Policy will provide elements wh ich may also be of interest for the 
supervision of the scheme. This will be of particular importance in situations where 
the participants in a certified fishery fail to comply with applicable conservation and management measures. 
11. A
CCURATE INFORMATION OF THE CONSUMER  
The certification standard used to award an eco-label should be  available to the 
consumer. Product information at the point of sale should re flect the assessment 
undertaken. 
It is essential that  consumers know what an eco-labe lling scheme stands for. The 
certification standard together with the cr iteria used should therefore be made 
available to consumers so that they can s ee for themselves what a given eco-labelling 
scheme represents. In addition, the information on the product at the point of sale should accurately refl ect the certification standard. Without this, there would be a 
risk of misleading consumers about th e real significance of eco-labels.