Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on Launching a debate on a Community approach towards eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products  (COM(2005) 275 final)
Date: 2006-02-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: aquaculture, eco-label, environmental protection, fishery product, labelling, sustainable development

11.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/27

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social
Committee on Launching a debate on a Community approach towards eco-labelling schemes for
fisheries products

(COM(2005) 275 final)

(2006/C 88/08)

On 29 June 2005, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned
communication.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 January 2006 (rapporteur: Mr Sarró Ipar-
raguirre).

At its 424th plenary session held on 14 and 15 February 2006 (meeting of 14 February), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 100 votes to one with three absten-
tions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

The European Economic and Social Committee:

1.1 Welcomes the launch of a debate on a Community
approach to eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products.

1.2

Expresses its wish to participate actively in the work.

1.3
Recommends to the Commission that, in addition to the
necessary coordination between its departments with responsi-
bility for eco-labelling, it maintain close cooperation with the
competent international organisations in this field, such as the
FAO, the WTO, the OECD, the UNCTAD, the ISEAL (Interna-
tional Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling
Alliance) and the ISO (International Standards Organisation).

Suggests that the Commission maintain ongoing contact
1.4
with the environmental and social stakeholders, particularly in
the sectors concerned (fisheries, processing and marketing), as
well as with consumers.

Considers that, given the complexity of the matter, it is
1.5
at present preferable to choose the third of the options set out
in the Commission communication, establishing minimum
requirements for voluntary eco-labelling schemes.

1.6
Points out, however, that these minimum requirements
must be sufficiently rigorous and be backed up by rules
preventing, and laying down sanctions for, infringement.

Draws attention to the fact that the eco-labels already
1.7
adopted by regional fisheries organisations, in line with regula-
tions adopted by the European Union (e.g. the Dolphin safe
label of the AIDCP — Agreement on the International Dolphin
Conservation Program (1)), must be complied with by operators,
with the necessary development rules being applied.

(1) See COM(2004) 764 final of 29.11.2004 containing the Commis-
sion's proposal to the Council and the amendment adopted by the
European Parliament which states that: ‘(9a) By virtue of the provi-
sional application referred to in the previous recital, the “Dolphin
Safe” certification provided for under the AIDCP has been the only
one recognised by the Community up to now.’ (A6/0157/2005 of
26 May 2005).

1.8
Calls on the Commission to pay special attention to the
problems caused by the costs of eco-labelling for fisheries
products, and to ensuring that these are fairly distributed across
the value chain between producers, processors, distributors and
consumers.

2. Reason

In

products.

2.1
In February 2004 the Council of the European Union
placed on its agenda the launch of a debate on eco-labelling for
fisheries
the Council
announced that it would be proposing conditions for identi-
fying methods of capture, as well as the continuous traceability
of the product from boat to final consumer, which would guar-
antee compliance with responsible fishing and marketing prac-
tices.

communication

its

The Council also stated that the Community should
2.1.1
lead the debate which was taking place in various international
forums.

2.1.2
In the communication under review the Commission
has finally launched a debate on the Community approach to
eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products, calling on the
other European Union institutions to express their views, with
the ultimate aim of proposing legislative initiatives and further
recommendations.

It

2.1.3
is therefore up to the European Economic and
Social Committee to express its views and take a position on
the initiative.

The references in this opinion to ‘fisheries products’
2.1.4
should be understood to include aquaculture products, without
prejudice to the environmental specificities of the two activ-
ities.

C 88/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.4.2006

2.2 Background

series of standards. The Commission should make strenuous
efforts to ensure that the rules adopted are consistent with the
existing international rules and guidelines.

The Commission communication is

2.2.1
the result of
considerable work to summarise a situation which is complex
in both legal and practical terms, and the European Economic
like to congratulate the
and Social Committee would first
department responsible. It should be borne in mind that the
Committee commented in general terms on some of the ques-
tions now raised specifically by the eco-labelling of fisheries
products in its Opinion on Ethical Trade and Consumer Assurance
Schemes (2).

2.2.5
Various Member States and, in accordance with their
respective constitutional models, a number of regional authori-
ties have powers in this field, which in some cases have been
developed and in others are to be developed. Thus, very diverse
forms of eco-labelling — public and private, supranational,
national and regional — coexist in the European Union, and
this may be a source of confusion for consumers and operators
in the various markets.

2.2.2
In order to place the debate in its proper context, it
should be pointed out that the competent committee of the
FAO, the United Nations agency with responsibility for fish-
eries, recently (11 and 13 March 2005) adopted its own Guide-
lines on eco-labelling for fish and fisheries products from
marine fisheries, which had been submitted for expert consul-
tation and drafted in October 2004 (3). The debate in the FAO
began as long ago as 1998.

2.2.3
This opinion cannot deal in depth with the guidelines
referred to in the previous point, but it should be pointed out
that they contain the minimum substantive requirements and
criteria to determine whether an eco-label can be awarded to a
particular fishery,
it being understood that the fishery is the
unit of certification. The requirements can be summarised as
follows: a set of rules, an administrative control framework,
hard scientific data on existing stocks and the effects of fishing
on the relevant ecosystem. On the other hand, the FAO has
drawn up guidelines for the drawing up of rules on sustainable
fishing and, above all, valid accreditation and certification
mechanisms. It should in particular be stressed that the FAO
guidelines list as essential requirements for the operation of a
system of eco-labelling: transparency, fair participation by all
interested parties, notification provisions, keeping of records,
review and revision of standards and of standard-setting proce-
sufficient human and financial
dures,
resources, the submission of accounts and the accessibility of
information and systems for the maintenance, suspension and
withdrawal of accreditation, and corresponding rights to lodge
complaints.

the availability of

At the same time,

it should be borne in mind that
2.2.4
eco-labelling is a relatively recent activity, used mainly in the
OECD countries (4) and that work is currently underway at the
World Trade Organisation (WTO). At the same time, the Inter-
national Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) has drawn up
its own methodological and conceptual criteria for the manage-
ment of environmental quality in the form of the ISO 14000

(2) OJ C 28, 3 February 2006.
(3) See FAO TC:EMF/2004/3, August 2004.
(4) See,

for example, COM/ENV/TD(2003)30/FINAL of 25 February
2004 on access for developing countries to the markets of devel-
oped countries in selected eco-labelling programmes. Available from
www.oecd.org.

Consequently,

harmonising
2.2.6
approach is needed as a result of the plethora of rules and eco-
labels currently existing in the various markets (5).

a multidisciplinary,

2.2.7
The European Union established a harmonised system
of eco-labelling for the first time in 1992, through Council
Regulation 880/92 of 23 March (6). The revision of this regu-
lation five years ago by the regulation currently in force (7)
established a system of eco-labelling for various categories of
product which do not include fisheries products. The Commis-
sion should therefore look in detail at
the possibility of
extending the existing eco-label to fisheries and aquaculture
products.

2.2.8
It should not be forgotten that the debate on eco-label-
ling schemes for fisheries products is taking place in the
context of current European Union policies. We would refer
specifically to the Sixth Community Environment Action
Programme adopted by Decision No 1600/2002/EC of
the
the Council (8), and the Com-
European Parliament and of
munity Action Plan integrating environmental protection
requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy (9) in which the
examination of eco-labels for fisheries products is considered as
a complementary measure.

Although the

rather different,

2.2.9
the
situation is
Committee would like to draw the attention of the Commission
and the other institutions and interested parties in the Union to
the existence of a scheme for the harmonised, unified applica-
tion of a label which can certainly be regarded as ecological, as
it ensures compliance with the directives on the recycling of
packaging (10). We are referring to the Green Point awarded to
most recyclable packaging in the EU countries. This label was a
registered trademark belonging to German company which in
1996 moved its head office to Brussels and licensed the use of
the label in a form of cooperation with most Member States

(5) For purely illustrative purposes, the list of logos can be consulted
on the EU's own eco-labelling web pages ( http://europa.eu.int/
comm/environment/eco-label/other/int_ecolabel_en.htm).

(6) OJ L 99, 11.4.1992, p. 1.
(7) Regulation 1980/2000 of

the European Parliament and of

the

Council of 17 July 2000. OJ L 237 21.9.2000, p. 1.

(8) OJ L 242, 19.9.2002, p. 1.
(9) COM(2002) 186 final of 28.5.2002.
(10) Directives 94/62/EC and 2004/12/EC.

11.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/29

and third countries, as well as with economic operators
involved in the correct management of the recycling of packa-
ging. Today the legal basis is defined by the Community direc-
tives and the national development rules, which might in prac-
tice make it appropriate to have a single logo with a clear
message involving a private entity (Packaging Recovery Organisa-
) which monitors the harmonisation of
tion Europe
criteria, and with development by various national bodies in
the majority of Member States (11).

s.p.r.l

In view of the above, the Committee considers that
2.2.10
the eco-labelling of fisheries and aquaculture products is being
debated in the European Union at an opportune time; there
should therefore be no delays and the essential deadlines for
dealing with this complex issue should not be unduly exceeded.
The debate should be based on the FAO guidelines, without
however abandoning the EU's own criteria and improving these
where possible, with a multidisciplinary approach and a
criterion for harmonisation,
the main objectives being to
protect the environment and resources and serve the consumer.

rules make provision for the necessary transparency and equal
access mechanisms.

3.1.3
The work of the ISO and other organisations on stan-
dardisation, on the other hand, focuses more on methodology
and good practice in environmental management and related
eco-labelling; no documents exist dealing specifically with fish-
eries products.

3.1.4
Only the work of the FAO refers explicitly to the eco-
labelling of fisheries products, but we share the Commission's
view that any decision taken must be based not only on
compliance with the decisions of the international organisa-
tions but also on harmonisation of the different approaches
arising from the specific characteristics and tasks of
these
bodies.

3. General comments

3.1 Various approaches

The FAO, being an organisation with fisheries compe-
3.1.1
tence and thus a reference for the various regional fisheries
organisations connected with the current Law of the Sea based
on the UN Convention, has adopted an approach to the label-
ling of fisheries products aimed at protecting fisheries, and
referring only indirectly to the other phases of the marketing of
the product.

3.1.2
On the other hand, other international organisations,
such as the WTO (12) and UNCTAD, focus, within the general
framework of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade,
on ensuring that eco-labelling systems neither constitute illegal
barriers to international trade nor place developing countries at
a disadvantage (13). These organisations are attempting to make
complementary sustainable fisheries measures, such as eco-
labelling, compatible with the international rules prohibiting
the establishment of technical barriers to international trade or
measures of similar effect, also taking account of the need for
cooperation so that countries without the technical and finan-
cial resources needed for the establishment of eco-labels can
receive the necessary support.
In this sense the Committee
considers that the eco-labelling of fisheries products does not
in itself constitute a barrier to international trade, as long as its

(11) http://www.pro-e.org.
(12) Exhaustive information on the WTO's position on trade and the
environment can be found at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/
envir_e/envir_e.htm.

(13) See TD/B/COM.1/EM.15/2. Although it deals basically with agri-
culture, it is relevant to all extractive industries, such as fisheries.
(http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/c1em15d2.en.pdf).

3.1.5
For all the reasons outlined above, the EESC considers
that both international work and the legislative proposal even-
tually adopted by the Commission will need to take account of
the substantial Community acquis and of the experience under-
lying the European Union's current system of eco-labelling (as
well as parallel experience of the Green Point), with the depart-
ments responsible for fisheries coordinating their activities with
the departments responsible for the environment and harmoni-
sation of markets, so that undesirable dysfunctions or a prolif-
eration of eco-labels can be prevented, which, far from fulfilling
their
final
consumer, would only be a source of greater confusion.
Despite the difficulties inherent in all this, the Commission
should establish a timetable to ensure that
its legislative
proposal is not delayed beyond the first half of 2006.

function vis-à-vis market operators

and the

3.2 Different situations with regard to the eco-labelling of

fisheries products

As there is no basic regulation laying down sufficiently
3.2.1
rigorous conditions for harmonisation, as the Commission's
document clearly explains, different situations have arisen,
some of which may serve as a model to be copied and others
as a model of practices to be eliminated.

A study of the available literature (14) and of current
3.2.2
international rules highlights the way in which a multiplicity of
different situations does not always meet the requirements of
transparency and fairness which are essential to any system of
eco-labelling.

(14) See for example the report by Deere and Carolyn for the FAO and
the IUCN, Eco-labelling and sustainable fisheries, p. 9 and the EVER
report (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/emas/pdf/everinter-
imreport_en.pdf ).

C 88/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.4.2006

3.2.3
In certain cases we encounter voluntary mechanisms
which have arisen from cooperation between market operators
and civil society organisations. The organisations in question
have accreditation and certification standards and conditions
for the use of its eco-label which are clear, fair and publicly
available and which apply to various small fisheries around the
world. Such organisations have advisory committees and
suitable control mechanisms.

In other cases quoted by the Commission in its
3.2.4
communication, however, we come across mere private logos,
with rules which are either non-existent or not made public,
the application of which falls far short of complying with
codes of good practice for eco-labelling. One of these cases
may serve as an example illustrating the damaging effects of an
eco-label applicable to fisheries products, which contravenes
international law, creates undesirable barriers to international
trade and is based on methods which are completely at odds
creating,
with
according to one senior European official, an effective mono-
poly.

recommendations

eco-labelling,

any

on

3.2.5
Examples such as these demonstrate that the current
situation, in which it is possible to create eco-labels without
any solid legal basis, even where they contravene existing inter-
national and Community rules, cannot continue for much
longer, as they are harmful to producers, consumers and other
stakeholders.

In the case of

tuna from the eastern Pacific,

3.2.6
the
competent regional fisheries organisation, the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission, backed the adoption of an Agree-
ment on the International Dolphin Conservation Program
(AIDCP) (15) to which the European Union acceded voluntarily
by means of Council Decision 1999/337/EC of 26 April
1999 (16). This agreement regulates an eco-label which is also
supported by the European Community and is currently being
debated by the European Parliament (17).

3.2.7
Account should be taken of this specific situation as
background to the study of, and proposals for, regulation in
this area, as in cases where a regional fisheries organisation
competent for a specific area promotes its own eco-label in line
with FAO principles, the European Union should 1) participate
in the work to ensure that the certification and issue proce-
dures meet the necessary requirements and 2) consider the use

(15) The provisions of

the agreement can be consulted at http://

www.iattc.org/PICDDocumentsSPN.htm.

(16) See also the Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion by
the European Community of the Agreement on the International
Dolphin Conservation Programme (COM(2004)764 final).

(17) PE 357.789v01-00 of 2.5.2005, rapporteur Mr Duarte Freitas:
Draft Report on the Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclu-
sion by the European Community of the Agreement on the Interna-
tional Dolphin Conservation Programme.

of such labels in its own rules and the prohibition of labels
which contravene the rules.

3.2.8
The Committee considers that any private eco-label
for fisheries and aquaculture products should be subject to
rigorous accreditation criteria and independent certification,
and that
to be drawn up by the
Commission should contemplate the establishment of a public
register open to all interested parties and to fisheries and aqua-
culture market players containing details of labels in use which
meet the legally established requirements.

the legislative proposal

4. Specific comments

4.1 Implementation, certification, issue, supervision and sanctions

Eco-labels should be clearly differentiated from general
4.1.1
rules on the labelling of food products. The use of an eco-label
does not in itself guarantee compliance with rules, the applica-
tion of which can be required in any case, also for non-eco-
labelled products, but rather compliance with higher environ-
mental protection standards, which in our case include respon-
sible fishing practices, conservation of stocks of the product
covered by the label and minimisation of damage to biodiver-
sity and the marine environment in general.

salted,

frozen,

4.1.2
The label for fisheries products, like any other extrac-
tive or aquaculture product, may be awarded in respect of non-
processed products (whole fish, either fresh or frozen) or
processed fish products, whether
canned,
precooked or prepared. In the first case, the eco-label must
guarantee that the fishing methods used comply not only with
fishery control standards but also with the FAO's Code of
Conduct
the
fishery products eco-label must guarantee that
the correct
application of traceability rules for food products really means
that the processed and marketed product which reaches the
consumer is the product of fishing which deserves the eco-
label.

for Responsible Fisheries.

In the second case,

4.1.3
For the correct implementation of an eco-label applic-
able to fisheries products, it is not sufficient to have a general
framework of rules; rather, a clear mechanism has to be estab-
lished for the accreditation of certification bodies, the award of
eco-labels, the settlement of disputes, supervision and sanctions
in the event of abuse and non-compliance, differentiating the
labelled product from other fisheries products.

11.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/31

4.1.4
The EESC considers that this clear mechanism should
be the register referred to in point 3.2.8 above. The rules and
the register must ensure that the system is based on transpar-
ency; this, together with consumer information, must instil the
necessary confidence so as to reduce the existing gap between
the number of consumers interested in the environmental
aspects of a product (currently around 44 %) and those who act
on this interest when buying (currently around 10 %).

4.1.5
Both the data contained in the EVER report referred to
above and the position adopted by EUROPECHE/COGECA (18)
in its memo on the subject of this opinion give rise to a certain
pessimism with regard to the likelihood that eco-labelling in
fisheries products in particular, will
general, and that of
generate added value for producers and transparent and accu-
rate information for consumers. However, conservation of the
environment in its broadest sense is becoming, alongside the
fight against world hunger, one of the two main challenges
facing the human race. It is therefore essential that the Euro-
pean Union seek to play a leading role in processes allowing
responsible consumers to distinguish between, and opt for,
products, the extraction, processing and marketing of which
has complied with environmental protection standards.

4.1.6
The Committee has been informed of the position
formally adopted by the WWF and is glad that this, despite
possible differences of approach in specific areas, largely coin-
cides with the views expressed in this opinion, particularly with
regard to the necessary stringency of the rules on the eco-label-
ling of fisheries products.

The Committee believes that

4.1.7
the rules which the
Commission will in due course propose should take particular
account of the possible validity of eco-labelling for the fisheries
industry, with the costs being passed along the commercial
value chain without detriment to consumers. In this sense, the
eco-labelling of fisheries products could be a mechanism for
focusing the attention of fishermen and firms on the need to

Brussels, 14 February 2006.

practise sustainable fishing and aquaculture
to
conserve fish stocks which are the mainstay of fishing activity
and all the downstream activities.

in order

4.1.8
The Committee would point out to the Commission
that the eco-labelling of fisheries and aquaculture products has
a financial cost which will have to be absorbed by the produc-
tion chain before the product reaches the final consumer. SMEs
and developing-country operators may in certain circumstances
have difficulty in gaining access
to eco-labels. The rules
adopted should therefore include intervention mechanisms
involving producer organisations, fishermen's associations and
partnership agreements. At all events, if an eco-label is to be
fully effective, a major educational and publicity effort
is
needed. The EESC therefore considers that public-sector institu-
tions
information and awareness-raising
campaigns for operators and consumers.

should finance

4.1.9
For this reason, any action by the European Union in
this area should be seen as the first step on a journey. This first
step should, however, be sufficiently ambitious to establish:

i. clear and binding rules on the accreditation, certification
and use of the eco-label(s) applicable to fisheries products;

ii. systems for monitoring the effectiveness, transparency and

fairness of such rules for all operators;

iii. systems of sanctions (based on the subsidiarity principle)

for infringement of the existing rules;

iv. programmes of

information for consumers and market

operators on the exact meaning of the fisheries eco-label;

v. a corresponding investment programme, with particular
consideration for the economic impact of the eco-labelling
of fisheries products;

vi. the necessary mechanisms for continuous dialogue with
stakeholders on continuing improvements to the system.

The president

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(18) EP(05)115-CP(05)86S1, 24 August 2005.