REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on options for an EU eco-label scheme for fishery and aquaculture products
Date: 2016-05-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: European standard, aquaculture, consumer information, eco-label, environmental protection, environmental standard, fishery product, labelling

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.5.2016  COM(2016) 263 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on options for an EU eco-label scheme for fishery and aquaculture products  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Article  36  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1379/2013  on  the  common  organisation  of  the 
markets  in  fishery  and  aquaculture  products1  provides  that  the  Commission  shall 
submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a feasibility report on options 
for an eco-label scheme for fishery and aquaculture products (FAPs). 

In preparation of this report, a study has been commissioned to analyse existing eco-
labels and other forms of communicating environmental information. This analysis 
was  further  complemented  by  a  public  consultation  and  direct  interviews  with 
stakeholders2. 

The present report describes the context in which eco-labels have developed in the 
fishery  and  aquaculture  sector.  Relevant  public  and  private  initiatives  at  EU  and 
international level on environmental voluntary claims are presented. The situation of 
the market for eco-labelled products is described, as are the main issues raised with 
regard to eco-labels. Finally, the report identifies areas of possible action in relation 
to an eco-label scheme for FAPs and evaluates their respective feasibility. 

2.  CONTEXT 

The  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  aims  to  ensure  that  fishing  and  aquaculture 
social 
activities  contribute 
sustainability. 

long-term  environmental,  economic,  and 

to 

Eco-labels are a form of voluntary information to consumers. Development of eco-
labels is not exclusive to fishery and aquaculture. Over the last twenty years, public 
and private schemes have developed in a number of fields. Schemes in forestry3 and 
general  agriculture4  show  differences  in  design  and  requirements  compared  to 
fishery  and  aquaculture  schemes  and  are  not  comparable  in  terms  of  standards.  In 
terms of market presence, the main eco-labels for fisheries and aquaculture products 
are  similar  to  private  labels  such  as  those  operated  in  forestry,  even  if  logo 
recognition may be lower.  

As regards government recognition of the schemes, these sectors show no difference 
from  the  current  situation  in  the  fishery  and  aquaculture  sector,  i.e.  there  is  no 
specific  EU  regulation,  which  is  currently  applied  to  them,  with  the  exception  of 
organic  certification.  The  general  principle  applicable  to  voluntary  information  to 
consumer applies, providing that the claims must be clear and verifiable. 

1  Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on 
the  common  organisation  of  the  markets  in  fishery  and  aquaculture  products,  amending  Council 
Regulations  (EC)  No 1184/2006  and  (EC)  No 1224/2009  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 104/2000, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 1–21. 

2  http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/eco-label/index_en.htm 

3  For  instance  the  Forest  Stewardship  Council  (FSC)  or  the  Programme  for  the  Endorsement  of  Forest 

Certification – PEFC 

4  For instance fair trade or the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) 

2 

 
 
                                                 
According to the definition provided by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural 
Organisation  (FAO),  eco-labels  entitle  a  product  to  bear  a  logo  or  statement 
certifying  compliance  of  its  production  with  conservation  and  sustainability 
standards.  Certification  is  carried  out  by  a  third  party  to  give  assurance  that  the 
production process conforms to specified requirements. In order to ensure that eco-
labelled products placed on the market come from certified sources, measures shall 
be put in place to ensure traceability of both the products and their certification. 

Eco-labelling in the fishery sector started in the 1990’s. While organic aquaculture 
is regulated in the EU5 since 2010, sustainable aquaculture certifications emerged in 
the  early  2000’s  and  are  growing  rapidly.  Eco-labelling  in  these  two  sectors  is 
different, and tackles different sustainability aspects. While in fisheries the focus is 
mainly  on  stock  conservation,  in  aquaculture  the  emphasis  is  mostly  on  potential 
negative  externalities  generated  by  production  such  as  disruption  of  natural 
ecosystems or water pollution. 

A  specificity  regarding  eco-labels  for  FAPs  is  that  the  majority  are  private  and 
international  and  there  are  almost  no  public  ones  that  comply  with  requirements 
established for environmental labels according to ISO14024 Type I. defined by the 
International  Organisation  for  Standardisation  (ISO)  for  environmental  labels  and 
declarations.  In  2014,  ISO  also  started  to  develop  a  standard  on  the  minimum 
requirements  for  the  certification  of  products  from  sustainable  marine  fisheries, 
which is expected to be published in 2017-2018. 

A more holistic definition of sustainability, which also includes economic and social 
aspects, has recently started to be integrated in eco-labels. 

Eco-labels operate in a context where consumers receive a multitude of messages on 
the  sustainability  of  fishery  and  aquaculture  products,  including  consumer  guides, 
NGOs’ campaigns and voluntary codes of conduct. The sheer mass of information 
on sustainability has given rise to controversy and some confusion. This issue is also 
prominent  in  other  markets.  Faced  with  a  profusion  of  labels  or  environmental 
claims, EU consumers often find it difficult to differentiate between products and to 
trust the information available. In  addition, environmental claims on products may 
not always meet legal requirements for reliability, accuracy and clarity. 6  

3.  ACTION AT EU AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL ON VOLUNTARY CLAIMS 

Over the past decade, several initiatives have been taken by the European Union to 
support the clarity and credibility of voluntary claims, to establish instruments that 
enable consumer to make informed choices and to ensure a high level of consumer 
protection  while  promoting  consumer  interests  in  accordance  with  Article  169 
TFEU. 

In  terms  of  EU  legislation,  provisions  have  been  adopted  that  deal  with  both  the 
content  of  the  claims  and  their  certification  by  third  parties.  Rules  on  consumer 

5  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  710/2009  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  889/2008  laying  down 
detailed  rules  for  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  834/2007,  as  regards  organic 
aquaculture animal and seaweed production. OJ L 204, 6.08.2009, p. 15–33 

6 

Consumer  market 

study 

on 

environmental 

claims 

for 

non-food 

products: 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/market_studies/environmental_claims/index_en.htm 

3 

 
                                                 
information  accompanying  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  have  been  reviewed 
and allow the provision of environmental information on a voluntary basis, provided 
that  this  is  clear,  unambiguous  and  verifiable7.  In  parallel,  requirements  for 
accreditation  have  been  established  in  the  area  of  certification.  This  includes  the 
condition  that  one  single  national  accreditation  body  ensures  public  control  on 
certification bodies8.  

Non-legislative  initiatives  have  also  been  developed  to  provide  guidance  on 
voluntary  claims.  The  EU  approach  to  sustainability  assurance  schemes  and  fair 
trade  certifications  was  presented  in  20099.  Maintaining  the  voluntary  and  non-
governmental nature of these schemes was emphasised together with the importance 
of  transparency  and  adequacy  of  information.    This  non-legislative  approach  was 
reinforced in the Communication  on agricultural product quality policy10.  Besides, 
the work of the Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Environmental Claims will feed into 
the  Commission  guidance  document  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  Unfair 
Commercial  Practices  Directive11  in  this  field.  In  parallel,  the  establishment  of 
methods to measure life cycle environmental performance is being promoted12 and 
best practice guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for agricultural products 
and foodstuffs have been adopted13. Dialogue on Corporate Social Responsibility14 
also continues between the European Commission, Member States, enterprises and 
other stakeholders.  

In addition, at the request the European Parliament, the Commission will launch in 
2016  a  pilot  project  for  the  assessment  of  voluntary  claims  on  fisheries  and 
aquaculture products. It will explore to what extent such claims are present on FAPs 
and compliant with relevant requirements. 

7  CMO Regulation, Articles 39(1) and 39(4). 

8  Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out 
the  requirements  for  accreditation  and  market  surveillance  relating  to  the  marketing  of  products  and 
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93. OJ L 218, 13.08.2008, p. 30–47. 

9 Commission Communication on " Contributing to Sustainable Development: The role of Fair Trade and 

nongovernmental trade-related sustainability assurance schemes. COM(2009) 215, 5.05.2009  

10  Commission Communication on agricultural product quality policy COM(2009) 234, 28.5.2009 

11  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair 
business-to-consumer  commercial  practices  in  the  internal  market  and  amending  Council  Directive 
84/450/EEC,  Directives  97/7/EC,  98/27/EC  and  2002/65/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  (‘Unfair 
Commercial Practices Directive’) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22–39. 

12  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Building the Single 
Market for Green Products Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products 
and organisations COM/2013/0196.  

  One of the 26 ongoing Product Environmental Footprint pilots deals with fish and aquaculture products.  
13  Commission  Communication  –  EU  best  practice  guidelines  for  voluntary  certification  schemes  for 

agricultural products and foodstuffs COM 2010/C 341/04. 

14  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate 
Social Responsibility COM/2011/0681. 

4 

 
                                                 
The recently adopted EU action plan on the Circular Economy15 stressed again the 
importance  of  enabling  consumers  to  make  informed  choices.  The  voluntary  EU 
Ecolabel16 is being reviewed under this initiative.  

The  Food  and  Agriculture  Organisation  of  the  United  Nations  (FAO)  has  set 
internationally  recognised  guidelines  on  eco-labelling  for  captured  fisheries  and 
aquaculture17, with strong involvement of the EU in their development. 

4.  THE MARKET FOR ECO-LABELS IN FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS 

The  EU  is  currently  the  largest  market  for  eco-labelled  FAPs.  However,  market 
penetration of eco-labelled  products varies significantly across Member States  and 
concentrates  on  frozen  or  processed  products.  The  main  consumers  of  seafood 
products (per capita consumption) are not the main buyers of products bearing eco-
labels.  In  countries,  such  as  France,  Italy,  Portugal  and  Spain  where  consumers 
mainly purchase fresh products, eco-labels and certifications play a marginal role18. 
On  the  other  hand,  eco-labelled  products  have  become  well  established  in  some 
Member States, such as Germany and the United Kingdom19. 

The  number  of  eco-labels  remains  relatively  limited  compared  to  other  consumer 
information tools. Growth in market share involves only a few schemes. 

The  main  private  eco-labels  today  are  the  Marine  Stewardship  Council  (MSC), 
which declares for 2014 the certification of 8.8 million tons of wild caught fish (i.e. 
10 %  of  global  landings),  Friend  of  the  Sea  (FoS),  for  which  available  data  from 
FAO  suggests  the  certification  of  about  10  million  tons  of  products  in  2011, 
GLOBALG.A.P. Aquaculture Standards, for which data indicate the certification of 
more  than  2  million  tons  of  products  in  2013,  and  the  Aquaculture  Stewardship 
Council  (ASC)  that  declared  over  400,000  tons  of  products  certified  in  2014. 
Recently,  producers  from  EU Member States have  started the certification process 
for their products, mainly in fisheries, signalling a new trend in the market as most 
eco-labelled products sold in the EU so far were imported. 

These schemes have specialised on some group of species. While MSC has mainly 
covered white fish (certifying 45 % of global whitefish catches) and small pelagics, 
FoS has focused on fisheries supplying the fishmeal industry, but also covered tuna, 

15 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the 
Circular Economy COM/2015/0614 

16  Regulation  (EC)  No  66/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  EU  Ecolabel.  

  OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1-19 

17  FAO  Guidelines  for  the  Eco  labelling  of  Fish  and  Fishery  Products  from  Marine  Capture  Fisheries.  
Revision 1. (2009), Guidelines for the Eco labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Capture 
Fisheries  (2011),  Technical  guidelines  on  aquaculture  certification  (2011).  FAO  also  discussed  a  draft  
Framework for assessment of Eco labelling schemes in inland and marine capture fisheries. 

18  The market share declared by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is below 1 %. 

19  The  MSC  declares  a  market  share  over  35%  in  Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  Sweden,  the 

Netherland and the United Kingdom. 

5 

 
                                                 
shrimps  and  prawns,  mussels  and  salmon.  In  aquaculture,  GLOBALG.A.P  mainly 
covered pangasius, tilapia, salmon and shrimps and ASC has emerged on the same 
species  as  well  as  on  bivalves  and  trout.  There  are  signs  that  these  schemes  are 
starting to work together on common criteria and mutual recognition. 

Over  the  past  years,  a  few  countries  have  established  public  eco-labels  for  fishery 
and  aquaculture  products.  So  far,  no  large-scale  public  scheme  has  emerged  as  an 
alternative to private certification. In the EU, France launched at the end of 2014 a 
public eco-label for fishery and aquaculture products. It is still too early to predict 
its potential market. 

5.  MAIN ISSUES WITH REGARD TO ECO-LABELS 

Three  main  issues  linked  to  currently  existing  eco-labels  in  FAPs  have  been 
highlighted in the analysis and consultation, namely: (a) credibility of the claim, (b) 
confusion due to the multitude of messages, and (c) market entry including costs. 

(a)  The issue of credibility relates to the validity of the claim made. Eco-label schemes 
represent  the  most  structured  type  of  consumer  information  on  environmental 
aspects.  Credibility is  based on the structure of the scheme, including  its standards 
and the transparency of the certification process. 

Assurance of credibility is paramount for retailers in that it is an essential element of 
the  brand  image.  Thus,  credibility  of  the  claim  influences  the  credibility  of  the 
retailer  itself.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  a  large  part  of  certified  products  are  not 
sold  with  a  logo,  making  the  certification  mainly  a  feature  of  the  business-to-
business relation rather than a form of consumer information. 

(b) 

Confusion  is  often  linked  to  the  perceived  proliferation  of  eco-labels,  and  the 
tendency  not  to  distinguish  eco-labels  from  other  initiatives  aimed  at  informing 
businesses and consumers, such as consumer guides or NGOs’ campaigns. 

A second source of confusion may come from the difference in content and scope 
of  eco-labels.  This  potential  confusion  permeates  all  levels  in  the  supply  chain. 
Producers may not know which eco-label to seek certification from, as this depends 
on retailers’ choices and on the specific features of each market. Retailers, in turn, 
have  to  select  eco-labels  that  provide  the  best  assurance  for  their  image.  Finally, 
consumers may not be aware of what each eco-label stands for. 

Given the problem of choosing which particular environmental aspect to focus on 
and  how  to  get  the  message  across,  this  can  lead  to  multiple  certifications  and 
different messages. The downside of this is confusion and may ultimately lead to 
additional costs for operators and mistrust of the claims. 

(c) 

A third issue refers to market entry and costs for the operators. Certification under 
eco-label  schemes  involves  audits,  inspections  and  assessments.  On  top  of  this, 
other  costs  may  be  incurred,  e.g.  for  the  use  of  the  eco-label  logo.  This  process 
implies costs and administrative burden, which are not necessarily reflected in sale 
prices for the producer. The cost linked to certification is of particular relevance for 
small-scale  producers.  Some  schemes  have  used  their  own  resources  to  set  up 
outreach  programmes  and  NGOs  actively  support  certification  for  small-scale 
producers. 

6 

 
Furthermore, certification has become essential for producers and traders to sell to 
specific markets that will otherwise remain closed or undervalued. 

At the same time, it provides a way for producers to differentiate their products and 
access new markets. 

6.  POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES  

Over  the  past  decade,  initiatives  have  developed  at  EU  and  international  level  to 
address environmental claims. As presented under Point 3 above, this includes  the 
adoption by the EU of a number of legislative and non-legislative acts. 

For the purpose of the feasibility analysis, three options for action by the EU were 
identified: effective use of available tools, development and possible application of 
minimum requirements and establishment of a Union-wide eco-label. 

6.1. 

 Option 1:  No  change:  current  legislation  and  effective  use  of  available 
tools. 

One  option  for  an  EU  action  in  the  domain  of  eco-labels  for  FAPs  would 
consist  in  strengthening  the  control  of  existing  regulations  and  further 
supporting  the  implementation  of  available  tools,  including  e.g.  marketing 
measures  under  Article  68  of  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund 
(EMFF). The assessment and control of voluntary claims may prove effective 
in strengthening credibility. Operators and consumers would definitely benefit 
in either case. 

As  for  avoiding  confusion  stemming  from  multiple  messages,  this  would  be 
limited: while it would be possible to check the content of claims included in 
the  product  labels,  other  forms  of  information  that  fall  outside  this  realm 
would not be subject to control. 

As  regards  costs  for  the  operators,  an  effective  use  of  available  funding 
opportunities  would  enable  producers  to  access  new  markets  while  reducing 
the  costs  they  have  to  bear  for  the  certification.  In  particular,  support  to 
certification is available to EU producers through the EMFF and to producers 
in developing countries through development programmes. 

The  possibility  to  include  FAPs  into  the  existing  EU  Ecolabel  could  be 
explored considering foodstuffs are already eligible in this framework. Based 
on the current experience on criteria development the process of establishing 
new  criteria  set  would  take  at  least  3  years  and  investment  of  resources.  It 
must  be  recalled  that  organic  aquaculture  is  regulated  and  that  an  analysis 
carried out in 2011 was not conclusive on the feasibility and added value of 
establishing EU Eco-label criteria to cover the environmental performance of 
foodstuffs20.  

20 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/EUEB_position_on_food_final.pdf 

7 

 
                                                 
 
By resorting to existing EU legislation and tools, the criteria of added value, 
subsidiarity  and  proportionality  would  be  fulfilled.  On  the  other  hand, 
additional  funding  may  be  necessary  for  control  activities  in  order  to  check 
compliance of voluntary claims with existing legislation. 

6.2.  Option 2:  Minimum requirements set by the EU 

This option looks at the possibility for the EU to set minimum requirements 
on  sustainability  claims  for  FAPs.  This  option  would  provide  a  coherent 
framework for comparing the content of these claims. 

Action in this area would effectively address potential confusion on the nature 
of  the  environmental  claims,  thus  reducing  mistrust  by  consumers.  It  would 
also tackle the issue of credibility, as certification processes would be based 
on  valid  relevant  requirements.  However,  it  would  not  address  the  issue  of 
costs to be borne by the producer for the purpose of certification. 

This  option  would  translate  into  setting  sustainability  standards  taking  into 
account FAO guidelines in this field and indicators already established in the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP).  It  would  imply  drawing  up  two  sets  of 
standards at EU level specific to fisheries and aquaculture given the inherent 
differences between these two production methods. 

The  implications  would  include  extensive  preparation  and  consultation, 
including  periodical  review  of  the  standards,  and  the  adoption  of  new 
legislative acts by the EU.  

An alternative approach would be to focus on minimum requirements of the 
certification process. This option has already been pursued through action at 
EU  and  international  level.  Existing  legislation  ensures  control  of  critical 
steps in the certification process. Detailed recommendations regarding scheme 
development, requirements and corresponding claims already exist. Examples 
of  best  practices  in  certification  are  also  documented  in  the  Codes  of  Good 
Practice  of  the  International  Social  and  Environmental  Accreditation  and 
Labelling Alliance (ISEAL) and in FAO guidelines and will be integrated in 
the ongoing work of ISO. 

Another alternative could be for the Commission to present recommendations 
incorporate 
and  best  practices.  Such  non-legislative 
international  references  on  ecolabelling  in  fisheries  and  aquaculture  and 
similar  approach  in  the  field  of  environmental  claims  of  food  and  non-food 
products.  This  could  increase  transparency  and  facilitate  a  common 
understanding by ecolabel schemes, operators in the supply chain and public 
authorities.  It  would  imply  similar  consultations  and  preparation  as  for  the 
previous sub-options but would not require legislation.  

initiative  could 

6.3.  Option 3: Establishment of an Union-wide eco-label scheme 

The  creation  of  a  self  standing  Union-wide  voluntary  eco-label  scheme  for 
FAPs would imply a definition of requirements. On top of this, procedures for 
review,  certification,  labelling  and  dispute  resolution  would  also  need  to  be 
developed  together  with  measures  to  promote  this  new  scheme.  The  scope 
should  include  both  fisheries and  aquaculture  as  well  as  all products  sold  in 

8 

 
the  EU  independently  of  their  origin.  This  is  particularly  relevant  for  this 
sector considering that the EU imports 65% of its fish consumption and that, 
developing countries represent a substantial part of the supply.  

Action  in  this  area  may  bring  positive  effects  in  terms  of  credibility  of  eco-
labels, as the existence of a public scheme may lead to higher standards and 
certification  performance.  The  presence  on  the  market  of  a  public  eco-label 
may  also  reduce  confusion  regarding  the  content  of  environmental  claims. 
However, it is not clear whether it will have any impact on the provision of 
other  types  of  environmental  information  to  consumers  neither  where  it  will 
fit in a market where a number of recognised labels already exist. In terms of 
costs  for  the  operators  for  the  certification,  some  savings  could  be  made  as 
regards the use of the logo as this would be public. However, costs linked to 
the certification of the products may not significantly change. 

A  Union-wide  scheme  will  not  stop  the  proliferation  of  eco-labels,  and  may 
increase  complexity  by  introducing  another  label  on  the  market.  It  may  in 
particular  undermine  the  organic  logo.  On  the  other  hand,  the  presence  of  a 
dedicated  public  eco-label  for  FAPs  could  expand  the  array  of  choices 
currently  available  to  producers  and  retailers  and  reduce  the  risk  that 
established private eco-labels become too dominant. 

This  option  would  require  the  adoption  of  a  new  legislation,  as  well  as  the 
allocation  of  resources  to  the  management  of  the  scheme.  The  costs  of 
developing, implementing and promoting a Union-wide eco-label dedicated to 
FAPs can be compared to those incurred for the establishment of the organic 
certification and EU Eco-label, and are significant in comparison to the other 
options presented. 

7.  CONCLUSIONS 

Eco-labels  in  FAPs  have  become  increasingly  important  over  the  past  decade. 
Volumes of eco-labelled products are now substantial, yet concentrated in some EU 
markets  and  products.  Over  the  same  period,  the  EU  has  adopted  a  number  of 
regulations  and  launched  initiatives  to  promote  consumers  protection  and  regulate 
the  provision  of  environmental  information.  Analysed  globally  with  other  sectors, 
there is no major specificity of eco-labels in fisheries and aquaculture products. 

Today, eco-labels in the fishery and aquaculture sector serve multiple purposes: they 
give assurance to retailers as regards the sustainability of the products they sell. In 
turn,  retailers  use  this  assurance  to  emphasise  sustainability  aspects  in  their 
consumer  information  campaigns  and  to  protect  their  brand.  Furthermore,  they 
inform  consumers  on  the  sustainability  performance  of  a  product.  Eco-labels  also 
allow  differentiating  products  in  the  market  and  may  help  consumers  to  make  a 
choice. 

Much is made of the role of consumers and demand for eco-label is often assumed. 
However the critical link is between the supplier and retailer. Eco-labels may help 
avoid a much larger proliferation of retailer-based certification or self-declaration.  

The  report  has  highlighted  a  number  of  issues  linked  to  eco-labels.  Firstly,  the 
credibility of the claims is linked to the existence of  a robust certification process. 

9 

 
Secondly, confusion is related to the perceived proliferation of eco-labels and to the 
parallel use of other communication tools, as well as to the difference in content and 
scope  of  eco-labels.  Finally,  costs  linked  to  certification  may  be  substantial  for 
producers although sale of eco-labelled products may open up new markets. 

Three options for action by public authorities  have been analysed in this report 
which  show  different  results  in  terms  of  EU  added  value,  costs,  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality. 

The first option – no legislative change and effective use of available tools would 
prove  effective  in  addressing  the  credibility  of  claims,  but  would  not  improve  the 
state  of  confusion  resulting  from  multiple  messages,  since  consumer  information 
that falls outside existing EU regulations would not be subject to control. As regards 
costs, use of public funds could help reduce the costs of certification for producers. 

This option satisfies the criteria of added value, subsidiarity and proportionality, as 
it is based on already adopted legislation. On the other hand, additional funding may 
be necessary to strengthen control of voluntary information on food labels. 

The  second  option  –  setting  of  minimum  requirements  on  sustainability  and 
certification  process–  would  address  issues  such  as  potential  confusion  and 
credibility. It would imply extensive preparation and adoption of new legislation or 
a  recommendation  at  EU  level.  Similar  objectives  could,  alternatively,  be  reached 
by supporting international standards that are being developed. 

The  third  option  –  the  establishment  of  a  self-standing  Union-wide  eco-label 
scheme for FAPs may bring positive effects in terms of credibility of eco-labels by 
creating incentives and an effective public control. The issue of the confusion on the 
content  of  environmental  claims  could  also  be  improved,  while  it  is  not  clear 
whether there would be any effect on the provision of other types of environmental 
information  to  consumers.  In  terms  of  costs  for  the  certification,  only  limited 
savings could be achieved. 

New  legislation  would  need  to  be  adopted  to  establish  such  Union-wide  scheme. 
Given the differences in market penetration of eco-labelled products across Member 
States, and the premature stage of implementation of national schemes, action at EU 
level could be contested from a subsidiarity viewpoint. Similarly, the impossibility 
to detect explicit market failures may raise questions as regards the added-value of 
EU  action,  and  the  proportionality  of  this  choice.  The  costs  of  this  option  are 
significant compared to the other two options. 

The  CFP  is  expected  to  deliver  on  sustainability  by  2020  at  the  latest,  partially 
reducing  the  need  for  a  public  label  as  a  driver  of  sustainability.  Furthermore,  the 
dual role of the EU in improving environmental sustainability through the CFP and 
setting criteria for assessing sustainability may raise consistency issues. 

10