Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee - Launching a debate on a community approach towards eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products (SEC(2005)840)
Date: 2005-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: eco-label, environmental protection, fishery management, fishery product, labelling, sustainable development

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 29.06.2005 
COM(2005)275 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND 
SOCIAL COMMITTEE 

Launching a debate on a Community approach towards 
eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products 

(SEC(2005)840) 

. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 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. 

INTRODUCTION 

In December 1997 the Commission Communication on the Future for the Market on Fisheries 
Products  in  the  EU1  first  addressed  the  need  to  discuss  non-discriminatory,  voluntary  eco-
certification  schemes.  In  subsequent  discussions,  most  Member  States  agreed  that  the 
Community  should  establish  a  common  line  but  views  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-labelling 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  provides  for  sustainable  economic, 
environmental  and  social  conditions.  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  increasing  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 regards 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  contribute  significantly  to 
integrating environmental protection concerns into the fisheries sector. This Communication 
intends  to  launch  an  in-depth  conceptual  debate  about  these  topics  and  to  explore  the 
possibilities of moving ahead. 

1 

2 

3 

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. 
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. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  2371/2002  of  20  December  2002  concerning  conservation  and  sustainable 
exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59). 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
2. 

ECO-LABELLING SCHEMES 

2.1. 

Definition4 

An eco-labelling scheme entitles a product to bear a distinctive logo, or statement, by way of 
which consumers are assured that the product has been produced according to a given set of 
environmental standards, such as the sustainability 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  consumers  are  properly  informed,  their  choice  could  possibly 
stimulate  the  promotion  and  consumption  of  environmentally  friendly  products.  Thus, 
consumers can influence the behaviour of producers and policy makers.  

The  industrial  and  forestry  sectors  of  today  possess  a  large  variety  of  certification  and  eco-
labelling schemes. The Community’s own eco-label award scheme5 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  interest  in  food  products 
associated  with  sustainability  considerations.  This  has  created  momentum  in  the  fisheries 
sector with the development of private eco-labelling 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  initiatives  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-friendly" labelled tuna 

The  most  frequently  cited,  and  possibly  most  controversial,  case  of  eco-labelling  in  the 
fisheries  sector  is  the  “dolphin-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 line with a programme promoted by the Earth Island Institute, a 
US based non-governmental organisation.  

Although “dolphin-safe/dolphin-friendly” labelling started out as a technical 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  bars  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 measures not to be stringent enough.  

4 
5 

6 

see Annex I -1 for definitions, experience in other fields and technical details. 
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). 
See Annex I – 2. for further details. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Community supports the voluntary AIDCP Dolphin Safe Certification scheme. After the 
implementation of the Tuna Tracking System7, the question is whether and how to implement 
the AIDCP certification scheme at Community level. 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), jointly created in 1997 by Unilever and the World 
Wildlife  Fund  for  Nature  (WWF)  but  now  working  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 environmental problem of over fishing.” To date, ten 
fisheries have  been certified amongst  which  are  four European fisheries. Over 180 products 
around the world carry the MSC label. Twelve fisheries are currently undergoing assessment, 
including the North Sea Herring and the Alaska Pollack. 

The process of developing the MSC principles has 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. 

WORK ON ECO-LABELLING IN INTERNATIONAL FORA 

3.1. 

Food and Agriculture Organisation 

In the framework of the FAO, the discussion 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  concerns  that  eco-labelling  would  lead  to  new 
barriers to trade. Experts generally 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  with  respect  to  the 
development of international guidelines for eco-labelling schemes. Considerable progress has 
been  made,  and  a  second  technical  consultation  has  been  convened  for  before  the  COFI 
meeting.  The  final  text  of  guidelines  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  commitment  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 

8 

Council Regulation No 882/2003 of 19 May 2003 establishing a tuna tracking and verification system. 
(OJ L 127 , 23.5.2003, p. 1). 
Report twenty-third Session of the Committee on Fisheries (Rome, Italy, 15-19 February 1999), FAO 
Fisheries Report. No. 595. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
based on the life cycle approach9. The Community has suggested that 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 trade, development and environmental policies10. They 
have not yet reached a conclusion. 

4. 

OBJECTIVES  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 fisheries 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 responsibility 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 practices. The Commission therefore 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  authorities  and  that,  whilst  eco-labels  can  operate  in  support  of  sustainable 
fisheries, they should not replace governmental conservation policy.  

The Commissions is of the view that a coherent Community policy on eco-labelling for fish 
and fisheries products should be developed to address the consequences of the emergence of 
disparate sets of eco-labels.  

Such a policy should aim to further : 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

9 
10 
11 

Sustainable  fisheries11  and  an  adequate  level  of  protection  of  the  ecosystem:  eco-
labelling schemes, if based on clearly defined criteria and appropriate indicators, can 
assist  in  both  monitoring  progress  made  on  sustainability  fishing  and  in  raising 
public awareness of sustainability issues; 

A  harmonised  approach  to  eco-labelling  schemes  throughout  the  Community: 
consumers  should  be  assured  that  all  eco-labelling  schemes  within  the  Community 
follow basic similar guidelines and principles;  

transparent and objective information of consumers: when purchasing, decisions are 
based in part on non-product-related characteristics such as production methods and 
environmental impacts; clear and verifiable information should be available in order 

See Annex I-1. 
Document JOB(03)/130 of 27 June 2003. 
According to the Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and 
sustainable  exploitation  of  fisheries  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 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to avoid misleading claims; eco-labelling schemes should also be in conformity with 
the  general  requirements  of  consumer  policy  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  consumer 
protection in accordance with Article 153 of the Treaty; 

Fair  competition:  the  use  of  misleading  eco-labels  should  be  avoided  and  labels 
should be more than promotional tools for individual companies;  

Open  access:  all  eco-labelling  schemes  should  guarantee  open  access,  without 
discrimination, and the cost to be paid by participants should not be prohibitive for 
small and medium enterprises, or for the small-scale fisheries sector; and 

Development  and  trade:  priorities  highlighted  by  the  Community  in  the  WTO  to 
address the concerns of developing countries should be given due consideration.  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

5. 

AVAILABLE OPTIONS 

The main question for public authorities is how far voluntary eco-labelling schemes should be 
subject to rules in order to protect public interest. Three options seem to be available. 

5.1. 

Option 1: Non- action 

The first option to be envisaged is to do nothing. Eco-labelling schemes could then continue 
to develop freely on the market, without any intervention on the part of the public sector. Up 
to now, the Community has not taken up any measures 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 sector initiatives that 
are  using  aspects  related  to  the  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 sector 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 the public’s and the industrie’s awareness of sustainability.  

Disadvantages of the non-action option are as follows: 

•  Without  a  guarantee  of  independent  certification  and  accreditation,  the  reliability  of  the 

schemes would be questionable.  

•  Unlike  other  labelling  systems,  such  as  organic  labelling  for  example,  there  is  no 
consensus on what an eco-label in the fisheries sector actually means. Some consider it to 
certify the sustainable management of fish stocks; others focus on the ecological impact of 
particular  fishing  techniques  or  on  the  fishery  production  chain  taken  as  a  whole.  In  the 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
absence of minimum requirements for eco-labelling 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  market.  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-labelling. This could cause barriers to the free 
circulation of goods. 

•  If eco-labelling schemes are considered as the 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 distortion. Such intervention could then lead to 
complaints by developing countries. Public authorities could also find it difficult to provide 
developing countries with financial and technical assistance when schemes are controlled 
solely by the private sector.  

The  Commission  believes  that  the  potential  risks  arising  from  the  absence  of  a  clear 
Community approach to the marketing of eco-labelled products should be properly addressed. 
Rather  than  having  to  deal  ex-post  with  conflicting  or  inadequate  schemes  and  with  the 
ensuing adverse effects on the markets and/or the sound conservation 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 recommend to pursue the non-action option. 

5.2. 

Option  2:  Creating  a  single  Community  eco-labelling  scheme  for  fish  and 
fishery products 

It has been suggested that the Community should set up its own 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  between  eco-labelling  assessments  and  public 
management of stocks, a single Community eco-labelling scheme would serve to reassert 
the prerogatives of public authorities in the management of fisheries resources; 

•  Private  eco-labelling  schemes  should  be  restricted,  as  they  could  disrupt  the  market  by 
differentiating between groups of products, e.g. certification of fisheries irrespective of the 
existence of other fisheries on the fish stock; 

•  A single eco-labelling scheme would avoid confusion arising from competing eco-labelling 
schemes and ensure the credibility of one scheme through higher environmental standards, 
independent guarantees and added authority. 

The  Commission  is  not  convinced  by  these  arguments.  Competing  eco-labelling  schemes 
would  not  necessarily  have  an  effect  of  confusion  as  long  as  the  assessment  is  made  in  a 
transparent  and  non-biased  manner  and  the  criteria  applied  are  clearly  communicated  to  the 
consumer. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
In addition, a publicly managed single eco-labelling scheme would present a number of other 
problems: 

•  The  responsibility  of  public  authorities  to  protect  natural  resources  through  regulation 
could  be  obscured  by  their  managing  a  supplementary  voluntary  certification  system  for 
some stocks or types of fishing only. If the required standard 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 certify. In the absence of consensus on any single 
criterion of environmental impact this could give rise to controversy and 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 for 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 difficult to assume responsibility for this. 

•  A  publicly-managed  comprehensive  scheme  would  also  imply  significant  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 Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (see above footnote 10), 
might  create  advantages  for  products  imported  from  countries  that  have  a  longer  history  of 
management under the precautionary approach. 

The Commission considers that creating a single publicly administered eco-labelling scheme 
for fisheries products is neither appropriate or practical. If the private sector 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 conservation and management of fish stocks. 

5.3. 

Option  3:  Establishing  minimum  requirements  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  develop  through  public  and/or  private  initiatives  as 
long as they comply with the minimum requirements. The involvement of public authorities 
would  be  limited  to  the  registration  of  eco-labelling  schemes,  and  the  verification  of  their 
compliance  with  the  minimum  requirements.  These  requirements  should  cover  technical  as 
well as procedural and institutional aspects (see Annex II). 

Key advantages of this approach are: 

EN 

8 

   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-labelling 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  sustainability  are  being  properly  addressed,  and  to 
enhance the credibility and consistency 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 costly for the industry to implement; and 

•  Schemes already in operation could 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,  compared  to  the  Community  conservation  policy, 
without  being  discriminatory.  Criteria  will  have  to  be  reviewed  based  on  the  experience 
and  scientific  knowledge  gained.  The  requirement  level  of  eco-labelling  schemes  would 
thus need to be progressively upgraded over time; 

•  There  would  be  no  guarantee  that  all  the  eco-labels  on  the  market  would  address 
sustainability in the same way. Some schemes 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  requires  specific  skills  in  the  management  and 
operation  of  certification  schemes.  Fisheries  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. 

CONCLUSION 

Given  that  eco-labelling  is  now  becoming  a  significant  phenomenon  in  the  Community 
market  for  fisheries  products,  it  is  time  to  have  a  debate  and  establish  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 

9 

   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-labelling  schemes  for  the  promotion  of  sustainable 

fisheries, while yielding real benefits for fishermen, processors and consumers ?  

•  Should the approach be more result oriented or means oriented? 

Yet the overall objective remains to ensure a genuine Community approach to eco-labelling of 
fish  and  fisheries  products  reflecting  best  practice  in  this  field.  It  is  also  the  intention  to 
reaffirm the Community’s strong commitment to sustainability in the fields of the capture and 
use  of  fish.  By  means  of  such  an  approach,  collaborative  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 would be  the most appropriate  one at this 
juncture. This option would offer enough flexibility and would be proportionate in terms of 
costs.  It  would  make  it  possible  to  take  appropriate  action  for  greater  sustainability,  while 
allowing a gradual approach. It would also offer adequate protection to consumers.  

The  Commission  invites  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  European  Economic 
and Social Committee to debate the issues raised  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. Furthermore,  the  Commission also intends to  consult with 
stakeholders, mainly through the Advisory Committee 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 needed, to form the basis of impact 
assessments. 

As  a  follow-up  to  the  debate  on  this  Communication,  the  Commission  may  come  forward 
with appropriate legislative proposals. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I 

General aspects on eco-labelling 

1. 

HOW ECO-LABELLING SCHEMES WORK 

The International Standard Organisation (ISO) distinguishes between three types of 
environmental  labels  and  declaration.  Eco-labelling  schemes  fall  under  type  I  - 
environmental  labelling  (ISO  14024).  These  are  voluntary  programs,  designed  to 
reduce environmental effects by promoting market-driven demand for and supply of 
products which are verified by a third party. An eco-label should therefore indicate 
that an independent person or organisation has verified that 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 III - environmental declaration (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 independent certifying 
bodies and 3) the certification that the product 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  layer  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).  They  have  been  successful  in  raising  awareness  of  the 
environmental impact of industrial activity. The Community’s own eco-label award 
scheme12  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 industrial product groups, but does not apply to 
food products, drink and medicines. A large variety of certification and eco-labelling 
schemes have also been developed in the forestry sector. 

In  the  food  sector,  Community  measures  on  organic  production  of  agricultural 
products13  set  out  requirements  on  production,  labelling  and  inspection.  However, 
this  has  no  connection  with  an  eco-labelling  scheme.  In  any  event,  products  from 
wild animals such as game and fisheries products are excluded from 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 fisheries, Rome, Italy, 14 – 17 October 2003) 

12 

13 

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).  
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 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Accreditation: Procedure by which an authoritative 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  and  administers  an  accreditation  system 

and grants accreditation. (Based on ISO Guide 2, 17.2) 

•  Accreditation system: System that has its own rules of procedure and management 
for  carrying  out  accreditation.  (Based  on  ISO  Guide  2,  paragraph  17.1) 
Note  –  Accreditation  of  certification  bodies  is  normally  awarded  following 
successful assessment and is followed by appropriate surveillance.  

•  Certification:  Procedure  by  which  a  third  party  gives  written  or  equivalent 
assurance  that  a  product,  process  or  service  conforms  to  specified  requirements. 
Certification  may  be,  as  appropriate,  based  on  a  range  of  inspection  activities 
which may include continuous inspection 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  certification  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 relevant 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  considering  environmental 

impacts 
associated  with  any  phase  of  the  product  life  from  the  delivery  or  generation  of 
natural resources to the final disposal", including use and disposal of the product. 
The extent to which the life cycle is considered 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 recognized organization or arrangement, that 
provides,  for  common  and  repeated  use,  rules,  guidelines  or  characteristics  for 
products or related processes and production methods, with which compliance is 
not  mandatory  under  international  trade  rules.  It  may  also  include  or  deal 
exclusively  with 
labelling 
requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method. (Based on 
TBT agreement, Annex 1, para.2) 

terminology,  symbols,  packaging,  marking  or 

•  Standard-setting organization or arrangements : Organization or arrangement that 
has  recognized  activities  in  standardization.  (Based  on  ISO  Guide  2,  paragraph 
4.3) 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
7. 

ECO-LABELLING SCHEMES IN THE FISHERIES SECTOR 

Minimum  labelling  requirements  such  as  country  of  origin,  wild/harvested  fish, 
health  standards  or  other  regulatory  measures  in  respect  of  product  quality  have 
nothing  to  do  with  eco-labelling  requirements  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  Conservation  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  without  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 tuna 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  chasing  and  encircling  dolphins  which  tend  to  congregate  above 
schools of tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. A first attempt to ease the US 
law in 1999 was challenged in court by Earth 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  consider  the  AIDCP  measures  not  to  be 
stringent enough. 

Although  “dolphin-safe/dolphin-friendly”  labelling  started  out  as  a  technical 
regulation,  it  has  changed  the  market  profoundly.  Today  there  are  many  privately 
labelled tins of tuna. with such labelling 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 international 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 markets. This has given rise to an ongoing 
dispute between Mexico and US. 

The Community supports the voluntary AIDCP Dolphin Safe Certification scheme. 
After the implementation of the Tuna Tracking System16, the question is whether and 
how to implement the AIDCP certification scheme at Community level.  

14 

15 

IATTC –Tuna tracking and AIDCP 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). 
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 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
7.2. 

The Marine Stewardship Council eco-labelling scheme 

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), jointly created in 1997 by Unilever and the 
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), has launched a large private eco-labelling 
initiative  that  assesses  the  environmental  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  discriminatory  measure,  preventing  free  access  to  eco-
labelling schemes. 

Species concerned: 

•  Certified  fisheries  (as  on  31.07.2004):  Burry  Inlet  cockles  (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), Alaska 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 Mackerel and Herring; Australian 
Mackerel  Icefish;  Bering  Sea/Aleutian  Islands  and  the  Gulf  of  Alaska  pollock 
fisheries;  Lake  Hjälmaren  Pikeperch;  Net  fishery;  Sablefish  fishery;  Lakes  and 
Coorong  fisheries,  South  Australia  (Mulloway,  Cockle,  Golden  perch,  Yellow-
eyed  mullet);  British  Columbia  Salmon  fishery;  Hastings  Fishing  Fleet  Dover 
Sole Fishery 

7.3. 

The  "Arrangement  for  the  Voluntary  Certification  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 200118, identified a number of verifiable 
criteria  that  concentrate  on  the  process  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  international  eco-labelling 
guidelines in the FAO. 

16 

17 
18 

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). 
http://www.msc.org 
“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 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
7.4. 

Other private "logos" present on the market 

Unilever Fish Sustainability Initiative 

http://www.unilever.com/environmentsociety/sustainability/fish/ 

This Unilever program aims at guiding their internal selection of sources of whitefish 
supply.  Fisheries  have  been  classified  from  "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-labelling schemes, certain supermarket chains 
have  committed  themselves  to  restrict  their  supply  of  fish  to  sustainable  fisheries. 
They have started to develop and join certification programs 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 for 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-labelled  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-labelling 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 

15 

   EN 

 
ANNEX II 

Minimum requirements for eco-labelling schemes for fishery products 

1. 

PRECISE, OBJECTIVE AND VERIFIABLE CRITERIA 

The certification standard should rest on precise, objective and verifiable 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 certification 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  indicators.  A  criterion  that  “the  fishery  is 
conducted in a sustainable manner”, without any further objective parameters, would 
be  obviously  difficult  to  verify.  On  the  other  hand,  requiring  that  "the  fishery  is 
subject to a management plan based on the precautionary  approach" and indicating 
the  specific  features  of  the  management  plan  that  are  required  under  the 
precautionary  approach  would  be  objective,  precise  and  verifiable.  Using  "effort 
stays  below  FMSY"  as  a  criterion  is  even  more  stringent  and  would  allow  for  more 
precise measurement of the achievements of the scheme.  

Furthermore, certification standard and criteria should be subject to appropriate and 
participatory  consultation  of 
relevant 
international standards and/or generally accepted standards for the conservation and 
management  of  living  marine  resources  exist,  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.  

interested  parties.  Finally,  wherever 

8. 

INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY 

Eco-labelling  schemes  should  be  based  on  independent  assessment  and  ensure  the 
accurate  identification  of  the  product  throughout  the  chain,  “from  the  net  to  the 
plate”. Appropriate procedures, including 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  standard-setting  body,  the 
accreditation  body  and  the  certification  bodies  should  be  independent  from  one 
another.  Without  a  proper  separation  of  their  respective  responsibilities,  the 
independence  and  integrity  of  eco-labelling  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  certifying  bodies.  The  certification  process 
should be based on a clear assessment procedure and should cover both the fishery 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
and the post-harvest chain so that eco-labelling 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 through 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  for  fishermen,  there  should  be  a  regular 
evaluation to verify that the product continues to meet the requirements and to ensure 
a regular validation of the criteria used.  

9. 

OPEN ACCESS 

Eco-labelling schemes should not discriminate in terms of access to the certification 
process. 

With regard to international trade, eco-labelling schemes should in no case lead to a 
trade  or  competition.  Such  schemes  should  not  be  unfairly 
distortion  of 
discriminatory as to which fisheries, which vessels or which products are eligible for 
certification. Eco-labelling schemes should be open to all products marketed within 
the  Community,  whatever  their  provenance,  in  order  to  comply  with  the 
Community’s  WTO  obligations  under  the  Technical  Barriers  to  Trade  Agreement. 
They  should  not  discriminate  between  domestic  goods  and  imports,  or  between 
products from different trading partners.  

Developing  countries  contribute  substantially  to  the  Community’s  supplies  of  fish 
and fisheries products. The use of eco-labelling schemes could thus be an additional 
opportunity for them to get added value for their products. Special arrangements and 
technical and financial assistance would allow them to participate in such schemes. 
Fisheries Partnership Agreements could be appropriate vehicles to this end.  

Consideration must also be given to the potential difficulties that small and medium 
enterprises  (SMEs)  could  encounter  in  acceding  to  eco-labelling  schemes.  Stock 
assessment  and  criteria  monitoring  are  often  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 therefore encourage the use of alternative, 
less data demanding, methods for stock assessment 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 minimal requirements set. In such a case a 
reasonable delay should be foreseen for adaptation if ever needed. 

10. 

CONTROL OF ECO-LABELLING SCHEMES 

Eco-labelling  schemes  should  be  properly  controlled,  in  order  to  ensure  that  they 
comply with the minimal requirements, that certification is satisfactory and that the 
information provided to consumers is accurate. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
Adequate controls will reinforce the credibility of schemes for consumers and offer 
additional guarantees to the fishermen that the schemes are applied in an independent 
and  non-discriminatory  manner.  The  monitoring  and  control  of  the  Common 
Fisheries  Policy  will  provide  elements  which  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. 

ACCURATE 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  reflect  the  assessment 
undertaken. 

It  is  essential  that  consumers  know  what  an  eco-labelling  scheme  stands  for.  The 
certification  standard  together  with  the  criteria  used  should  therefore  be  made 
available to consumers so that they can see for themselves what a given eco-labelling 
scheme  represents.  In  addition,  the  information  on  the  product  at  the  point  of  sale 
should  accurately  reflect  the  certification  standard.  Without  this,  there  would  be  a 
risk of misleading consumers about the real significance of eco-labels.  

EN 

18 

   EN