ROUND TABLE ON
ECO-LABELLING AND
CERTIFICATION
IN THE FISHERIES SECTOR

22-23 APRIL 2009
THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

www.minlnv.nl
www.oecd.org/fisheries
www.fao.org/fishery

PROCEEDINGS

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC
CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

ROUND TABLE ON ECO-LABELLING AND CERTIFICATION
IN THE FISHERIES SECTOR

22-23 APRIL 2009
THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

PROCEEDINGS

FOREWORD

Over the past decade eco-labels and related certification have become a feature of international trade
and marketing of fish and fish products. Eco-labels are a market-based mechanism designed to provide
incentives for more sustainable fisheries management by encouraging buyers, from large scale retailers to
individual consumers, to only purchase fish and seafood certified as having come from a sustainable
fishery. Commitments to sustainable fish sourcing have become increasingly common in the procurement
strategies and corporate social responsibility strategies of large-scale retailers and commercial brand
owners.
Eco-labelling and certification schemes are typically designed and managed by non-governmental
organisations (NGOs or private businesses). They cover a range of product claims from benefits for fish
safety and quality, to improved legality, transparency and sustainability. However, they raise a number of
issues and challenges. Are they really making a difference for fisheries sustainability? Which schemes are
the most effective? How are the costs and benefits of eco-labels distributed along the value chain? How do
they interface with the role of public authorities in ensuring sustainable fisheries management and the
protection of natural resources? The Round Table on Eco-labelling and Certification in the Fisheries Sector
offered an opportunity for the range of stakeholders to debate these issues and to identify areas requiring
further research or action.
The Round Table
The Round Table on Eco-labelling and Certification in the Fisheries Sector was jointly organised by
the OECD Committee for Fisheries and the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. At the invitation
of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, the Round Table was held in The Hague,
The Netherlands, on 22-23 April 2009. The Round Table brought together representatives from the fishing
industry (producers, processors, buyers, retailers) NGOs, eco-labelling schemes, certification bodies,
academia, governments, and relevant international organisations.
Day One of the Round Table was chaired by Alfons Schmid, consultant. It was designed to give
participants practical information on recent developments in the branding and marketing of fish and fish
products, and included presentations from a range of eco-labelling schemes. Day Two of the Round Table
was chaired by John Connelly, President of the National Fisheries Institute USA. It focused on the
influence of eco-labels on sustainable fisheries management, their impacts on international fish trade and
marketing, and the various roles of the public and private sectors in relation to eco-labels and certification.
The Round Table forms part of the programme of work of the OECD Committee for Fisheries,
specifically contributing to its project on Fisheries and Aquaculture Certification. Eco-labels have been on
the agenda of the FAO Committee for Fisheries for over a decade. The Round Table will inform ongoing
work at the FAO on responsible fisheries and on private standards in capture fisheries and aquaculture.

3

This document provides the proceedings of the Round Table. It consists of:


The opening address by Minister Gerda Verburg, Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food
Quality of The Netherlands.



A Chairs‟ report of the Round Table that summarises the presentations and captures the
essence of the ensuing discussion.



The Round Table Programme.



Speaker biographies.



A list of participants.

Acknowledgements
The OECD Fisheries Policies Division of the Trade and Agriculture Directorate and the FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department acknowledge the generous financial and logistical support of the
Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. Thanks are also extended to the two Chairs and
to the speakers for sharing their experience. The frank and open discussion at the Round Table was
testimony to the richness of the speakers‟ presentations.
The OECD and FAO acknowledge the important contribution of the Round Table presenters: Lahsen
Ababouch, Sven Anders, Jonathan Banks, Richard Bates, Stefan Bergleiter, Paolo Bray, Crick Carleton,
Ole-Henning Fredriksen, Peter Hajipieris, Lars Hällbom, Rupert Howes, Anne-Kristen Lucbert, Dick
Nyeko, Petter Olsen, Lori Ridgeway, Kristjan Thorarinsson and Yngve Torgersen
OECD staff that participated in organising this work included Nicole Franz and Emily AndrewsChouicha.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD...................................................................................................................................................3
OPENING ADDRESS ....................................................................................................................................7
CHAIRS‟ SUMMARY REPORT ...................................................................................................................9
AGENDA ......................................................................................................................................................31
SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES ..........................................................................................................................33
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ...........................................................................................................................41

5

OPENING ADDRESS
Ms. Gerda Verburg, Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, the Netherlands

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Allow me to start by welcoming you all here today. I would particularly like to welcome the members
of the Committee of Fisheries of the OECD and the representatives of the FAO, the OECD, and also
representatives of consumer organisations, trade and processing, retail, NGOs, the fishing industry,
research institutes and government and other experts.
The diversity and international nature of the representatives here today make this conference
particularly significant. I am therefore delighted so many of you have come to this beautiful seaside venue
to discuss eco-labelling and certification in the fisheries sector.
This subject is very much in the public eye, which is why the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature
and Food Quality has taken the initiative to hold this Round Table in the Netherlands. I would like to thank
both the OECD and the FAO for their efforts in organising this conference.
Fish is hot. In the Netherlands, fish and fisheries are high on the political agenda and there is also
major public concern about the future of our oceans. And there is good reason for this concern, as
according to the FAO not less than three quarters of the world's assessed fish stocks are in jeopardy.
However, the fact is that fish remains an important source of food, and it is also very healthy. Fish is
therefore highly valued by the consumer, and fish consumption rises each year by eight to ten percent. We
can see that aquaculture plays an increasingly important role as a potential response to rising demand and
possible shortages.
And there lies the problem. On one hand we want to encourage people to eat fish to combat obesity
and because fish oils are so healthy, but on the other hand, we do not want fish stocks to be put under too
much pressure.
Furthermore, in recent years the interest of civil society and government for especially catching
methods of the fishing industry - and their impact on the ecosystem - is increasing. This while the fishing
industry is making significant progress towards more sustainable fisheries. This in response to the
announcement of major supermarkets that they intend to sell only sustainable fish.
As you can see ladies and gentlemen, there is a lot of activity in this field. Action is quickly followed
by reaction. The fact we are all pulling in the same direction is very encouraging. Because it is clear to the
fishing industry, the consumer, the government and civil society organisations: If we want to continue
eating fish we must embrace sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. And we must now act on this
momentum. Now is the time to make the switch to sustainability. But that can only be achieved if all
parties involved work together. And if all parties continue to challenge each other to produce results.

7

It is not always easy, but we are making significant progress. The market has responded very well in
the Netherlands. A large number of restaurants only serve sustainably caught fish, many cookbooks
promote the use of responsible fish and most wholesalers and traders pay attention to the sustainability of
their products.
Eco-labelling and certification is of course another good example. Consumers want proof that the fish
they buy is of good quality and has been caught in a responsible way. The market has responded by
designing labels and slogans such as: 'freshly packed' and 'caught in the wild', which I am sure you are
familiar with. But these are of no use to consumers. They say nothing about sustainability.
Furthermore, the number of claims and trademarks is growing so quickly that both consumers and the
market players cannot see the forest for the trees. Which labels are reliable and which claims should we
believe?
I also think there are too many logos and labels. And that is a shame because the aim of labels is, after
all, to provide clarity for the consumer. The presence of so many different labels does not exactly help to
achieve this. I am convinced that greater uniformity in this area will make things clearer for the consumer
and bring us closer to achieving sustainable fisheries and aquaculture.
That is why I have made a number of agreements here in the Netherlands. Last year I made
agreements with the fishing industry and civil society organisations for all Dutch-cutter fisheries to step by
step, enter the MSC's certification programme. This is part of a wider agreement to achieve sustainable
North Sea fisheries. Specifically, it means Dutch fisheries will in the future be assessed on the basis of the
MSC Standard for Sustainable Well-Managed Fisheries.
I have also made one million Euros available for the fishing industry in order to start certification of
fish and fish products. This will help to support certification of fish, crustaceans and shellfish that are
caught or farmed in an environmentally-friendly way.
Lastly, I will put the subject of certification on the agenda of discussions about the reform of the
Common Fisheries Policy. I am convinced that certification should become an important instrument in
achieving the aims of the CFP. To date this issue has hardly been discussed within this framework.
And ladies and gentlemen, I really think that is a missed opportunity. Because as I said before,
certification and eco-labelling contribute to sustainability. That is not only in the interests of fish stocks,
but also the fisheries and aquaculture industry. But then we have to go about this in the right way of
course. And the government and the market must work in the same direction.
And - ladies and gentlemen - that's where you come in. Because we all have ideas about the wrong
way to do things. But what is the right way? How can we prevent a whole forest, or rather, a whole ocean
full of claims, labels, logos and certification methods? How can we restore the consumer's confidence in
trademarks? What role does the government and the market parties have to play in this? Here in the
Netherlands we believe that certification of fish and fishing techniques is primarily a responsibility of the
market. But is that wise, or should the government take a more prominent lead?
There are more than enough questions ladies and gentlemen. Now we need answers. I trust that over
the coming two days you will express your thoughts on these matters. So that at the end of the conference
we can arrive at intelligent, but above all practical answers and possible solutions on which we on our turn
can base our policy. Policy that contributes to sustainability. To an economically profitable fisheries
industry, and to healthy stocks of fish.

8

CHAIRS’ SUMMARY REPORT1

by
Alfons Schmid and John Connelly2

Introduction
Eco-labels3 and related certification4 schemes are becoming a significant feature of global fish trade
and marketing. Buyers, especially large retailers and commercial brand owners have embraced them.
Commitments to source only fish and seafood certified as sustainable5 are increasingly included in their
procurement strategies and wider corporate social responsibility policies.
Eco-labels have emerged in the context of growing concerns about the state of the world‟s fish stocks,
increasing consumption of fish and seafood, and a perception that public mechanisms at the national,
regional and international level are failing to adequately manage the sustainability of marine resources. As
a market-based mechanism designed to improve fisheries management, eco-labels and the certification
process sitting behind them raise a number of issues and challenges: from broad policy questions as to how
they interface with governments responsibilities to manage natural resources; to technical questions as how
to define and develop standards related to „sustainability‟; to detailed questions related to how to evaluate
whether the various certification and eco-labelling schemes on offer are credible and robust.
In order to tease out some of these questions and to promote understanding amongst the various
stakeholders in the eco-labelling arena, the OECD Committee for Fisheries and the FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Department jointly organised a Round Table on Eco-labelling and Certification in the
Fisheries Sector. In co-operation with the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, the
Round Table was held in The Hague, The Netherlands, on 22-23 April 2009. The Round Table brought
together 120 representatives from: the fishing industry (producers, processors, buyers, retailers), NGOs,
1.

The Chairs‟ Summary Report is based on a report prepared by Sally Washington, consultant.

2

Alfons Schmid is an independent consultant and John Connelly is president of the National Fisheries Institute, United
States.

3

Eco-labelling: Product labelling conveying primarily environmental information to buyers; usually associated with a
certification process.

4

Certification: A procedure by which a party gives written assurance that a product, process or service is in conformity
with a standard. The procedure can be carried out as first, second or third party certification.

5

Sustainability: In its original sense, sustainability refers to development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundlandt, 1987). Applied to fisheries and
aquaculture, the focus is on protecting the resource itself (fish stocks) and avoiding negative impacts on the
surrounding eco-system.

9

eco-labelling schemes, certification bodies, academia, governments, and relevant international
organisations. The Round Table forms part of the programme of work of the OECD Committee for
Fisheries, specifically contributing to its project on Fisheries and Aquaculture Certification. It will inform
ongoing work at the FAO on responsible fisheries and on private standards in capture fisheries and
aquaculture.
Overview and key themes
The most striking feature of the Round Table was the apparent agreement amongst participants that
eco-labels and certification have a positive role to play in incentivising improved fisheries management. To
date there has been little concrete evidence of the impact of eco-labelling and certification on
improvements in fisheries management and sustainability. There was initial speculation that the first
fisheries to be certified were those that were already well managed. Under that scenario certification was
seen more as a marketing tool, aimed at increasing market share, extracting a price premium, and in the
case of retailers including sustainability in their fish and seafood procurement policies, a tool for attracting
and maintaining customer loyalty. After over a decade of experience, evidence is coming to light that
suggests that eco-labelling and certification might indeed be leading to better fisheries management, albeit
in some unexpected ways.
That certification of a fishery related to one area or species might encourage competitors to also seek
certification has been previously documented. Other improvements such as significant reductions in bycatch and fewer impacts on eco-systems have also been noted. The Round Table heard examples of
certification methodologies being used as self-assessment tools for fisheries, as a means to define gaps in
performance and to set a roadmap for improvement, whether or not those operating in that fishery actually
went on to seek formal certification. The Marine Stewardship Council‟s (MSC) pre-assessment in
particular was highlighted. What is important in this context is how certification methodologies can be
used to improve performance even in fisheries that for various reasons would be unlikely candidates for
actual certification.
Participants also heard how gaps exposed in the assessment process often lead to pressure on
governments to improve their performance, with implications for policy frameworks and resource
allocation. Previous debates have highlighted the unease experienced by some governments at what is in
essence private sector organisations passing judgment on their fisheries management frameworks and
outcomes. Other high-level questions such as the implications for market access and international trade
have also been raised. New policy questions emerged at the Round Table. In order for fisheries to be
certified governments might have to invest in management improvements, some specifically related to
pressure from the certification process, such as how related data is generated and made available.
Governments might also feel pressure to invest in management improvements specific to the fisheries
seeking certification when their existing policy framework would suggest those resources would be better
spent elsewhere. Should public resources be spent on fisheries seeking certification, or on transitional
fisheries to bring them up to the level of the best performers, or instead should efforts be concentrated on
the worst cases?
Governments have taken quite diverse approaches to the eco-labelling question. Some of these were
outlined at the Round Table and are described later in this report. What is interesting in the development of
the eco-labels phenomenon is how they interface with public policy goals. Essentially eco-labelling
schemes are private market mechanisms set up in response to perceived government failures in fisheries
management. Fisheries operators are now using the certification process to put pressure on governments to
address policy and administrative shortfalls. Governments are responding. Moreover, in some cases,
governments themselves are using the private market mechanisms of eco-labels and certification to put
pressure on their fishing industries to adopt more responsible and sustainable fishing practices. That is,

10

governments are using eco-labels as a means to promote traction in their own fisheries management
policies. The mix of public and private mechanisms and the relative pressure they exert has interesting
ramifications for overall governance.
The Round Table identified some gaps in the overall global governance for fisheries sustainability.
While there are obligations in international law (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), and
internationally agreed guidelines to help implement those laws (FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries) there are no internationally agreed sustainability standards or standards for fisheries
management, and therefore no criteria against which governments can judge themselves and their fisheries
management performance. The Round Table debated how to close this gap in the governance framework,
and asked whether it is possible to arrive at some „aspirational‟ governance regime for sustainable fisheries
management that would include principles of good public governance, as well as market principles and
mechanisms, and the interplay between them.
The need for an assessment framework and benchmarking exercise to evaluate the various ecolabelling schemes on offer was a recurring theme at the Round Table. Such an exercise was deemed useful
for the range of stakeholders: governments making investment or resource allocation decisions; retailers
and brand owners as a basis for choosing suppliers; and for the fishing industry seeking both a tool for
management improvement and the scheme most likely to offer market returns.
Rather than suggesting that the influence of eco-labelling schemes in global fisheries governance
should be curbed or regulated, the Round Table focused on how the pressure and momentum generated by
a market-based instrument could be harnessed to complement public measures for sustainable fisheries. A
quote by one speaker, that sustainability was to too important to leave to the market, and similarly too
important to leave to policy-makers, resonated with participants. Instead, the challenge is to align
incentives so that the private sector, NGOs and governments can all work together towards the shared goal
of sustainable fisheries management. The first step in that process is mutual understanding of the various
demands, motivations and constraints on those stakeholders. The Round Table provided a unique and
valuable opportunity for stakeholders to share their particular perspectives.
The Round Table clarified points of tension and key areas where further debate and action are
required, including: the need for a more equitable distribution of the costs of certification; clarifying issues
related to international trade and market access; the potential for integrated traceability mechanisms; and
the importance of including developing countries in the eco-labels debate. Overall, these issues highlight a
need to further clarify the roles and responsibilities of the public and private sectors in relation to ecolabels.
Although many of these issues are common to both capture fisheries and aquaculture, most of the
Round Table discussion focused on capture fisheries. That imbalance is reflected in this document which
attempts to give a flavour of the Round Table discussions. It first summarises the various perspectives of
the stakeholders present; buyers, the fishing industry, those involved in eco-labelling and certification, and
governments. It then discusses frameworks for and gaps in the global governance for fisheries
sustainability and highlights areas where participants suggested further dialogue or action is required. The
conclusions set a potential agenda for the work of the OECD Committee for Fisheries and the FAO.
Stakeholder perspectives
In response to the question, “Who should assume responsibility for ensuring fish stocks are not
overused?” Sixty seven percent of the respondents to a worldwide consumer survey said „governments‟,
46% said the „fishing industry‟, 28% said „fish manufacturers and processors‟, and 16% said „retailers of

11

fish products‟.6 In the public mind therefore, while governments have the primary responsibility for
fisheries sustainability, it is a responsibility that they believe should be shared with other stakeholders in
the supply chain. All of those stakeholders have an interest in the shared goal of sustainable fisheries. The
Round Table offered them an opportunity to share their different motivations and risk profiles and how
these shape their approach to eco-labelling and certification.
Buyers: developments in the branding and marketing of fish and fish products.
Market research shows that supermarkets are increasingly dominant in the retail of fish and seafood
products. Large supermarkets require stable supplies of good quality safe product. Increasingly they are
also requiring their suppliers to prove that those products have been sourced ethically. Eco-labels provide
this „burden of proof‟. Sustainability is becoming an important pillar of retailers‟ (and brand owners‟) fish
and seafood procurement policies.
In terms of retailing and marketing, fish is considered more complex than all of the other food groups
put together7. The “explosion” of fish related labels and certification, in particular related to farmed fish, is
adding to that complexity. The range and diversity of eco-labels has created what was described at the
Round Table as “eco-label noise”8. It was argued that consumers find the wealth of different messages
confusing; they increasingly put their faith in trusted retailers to define the boundaries of their ethical
purchasing decisions. Retailers and brand owners filter the various messages and through “choice editing”
decide which standards or labels to include in their procurement and marketing strategies.
Eco-labels are only one group of private standards: a range of certification schemes and labels exist in
fisheries and aquaculture, relating to factors such as safety and quality as well as to ethical differentiators
(organics, buy local, fair trade, social development, animal welfare). The more private standards adopted,
the more supply chain costs accrue, and the more complex is the procurement model.
Retailers are becoming the dominant actors in the food industry generally and have increasing
bargaining power vis-à-vis other actors in the supply chain. Retailers „private label‟ products are
competing with those of large commercial brands. For their part, large commercial brand owners are both
driving and responding to the demands for certified fish and seafood products. A senior manager
responsible for sustainability for a large commercial brand explained that he currently manages some 45
sustainability targets across that business, including specific commitments to sustainable fish sourcing.
Apart from these in-house targets, he also has to respond to the demands of retailers. If supermarkets have
commitments to different eco-labelling schemes, or even different schemes for different markets, he has to
respond to them.
Sustainability is difficult to market. It is becoming clear that despite consumers‟ stated interests in the
environmental impacts of their purchasing decisions, their actual buying behaviour, especially in relation to
food, is more likely to be determined by other factors. The current global financial crisis has seen
consumer confidence fall9 and their behaviour increasingly influenced by price. The industry therefore
cannot rely on consumers being prepared to pay a price premium for sustainable fish and seafood.
Affordability has to be built into the equation.

6

Nielsen Global Online Survey, March 2009, of 25 420 consumers in 50 countries.

7

Peter Hajipieris, Birds Eye Iglo, „Recent developments in the branding and marketing of fish and fish products‟.

8

Ibid.

9

Jonathan Banks, AC Nielsen, „The Consumer‟s Perspective‟.

12

It appears that it is no longer consumers and NGOs pressuring retailers to adopt sustainability targets
or to include eco-labels in their procurement strategies. On the basis of what was described as “enlightened
self-interest” retailers and brand owners are now driving demand for suppliers to be certified against one or
other eco-labelling or certification scheme. Eco-labels work as a marketing tool to protect and enhance the
overall value of the brand or supermarket chain. When they also have a comprehensive assessment model
and effective chain of custody systems sitting behind them, eco-labels offer additional guarantees of
traceability and good governance. MSC in particular appears to be attractive to buyers because it operates
as a management tool in the marketplace and among other things reduces the need for buyers to conduct
their own expensive validation/audit processes of suppliers. However, when supplies of certified fish and
seafood fall short of the demand for them, retailers and brand owners will still source uncertified product,
but on the basis of their own assessments of the sustainability of related stocks.
From the perspective of buyers some alignment of eco-labelling schemes, or at least some sort of
framework against which to judge the quality and credibility of the various fisheries certification schemes
in the marketplace, would be useful. This became a recurring theme throughout the Round Table. From
the perspective of buyers a suggested „wish list‟ for fish certification schemes was proposed10,
incorporating the following aspects:


Does it operate to an internationally agreed or harmonized reference, such as the FAO Guidelines
for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries?



Is the certification process compliant with relevant international standards e.g. EV450011,
ISO65, ISEAL?



Is the governance and transparency of the organisation/standard robust?



Does the issuing organisation have credibility (related to above)?



Is the scheme easily used by industry (e.g. easily understood using simple language)?



Is it affordable? Does the cost structure incite the market to adopt the standard?



Is a continuous business improvement process built into the scheme?



Do its label declarations align to international standards (i.e. ISO14020 aspects)?

There was also a call for more clarity in describing what is a sustainable fishery based on claims that
the FAO terminology („recovering‟, „depleted‟, „overexploited‟, „fully exploited‟, „moderately exploited‟,
and „underexploited‟) was liable to confusion and was often misrepresented in the media and by NGOs. In
particular the term „exploited‟ has pejorative connotations.
Private Eco-labelling schemes – how they function
In contrast to buyers‟ concerns about „eco-label noise‟, other participants argued that there were not
“too many eco-labels”. While there is no formula to define an optimal number of labels and certification
schemes, there was agreement that too many labels would lead to confusion, but too few might lead to a
monopoly situation. Domination by one label could leave the industry vulnerable to definitions of

10

Based on the presentation by Peter Hajipieris, Birds Eye Iglo, „Recent developments in the branding and marketing of
fish and fish products‟

13

sustainability that could change over time, or to a ratcheting up of requirements. Transparent and good
governance of certification schemes is imperative.
The Round Table agreed that rather than debate the merits, or lack thereof, of too many or too few
labels, the discussion should focus on the quality of information, or the relative „credence value‟, of the
range of labels on offer: are they truthful, legitimate, transparent, robust, and consistent with the FAO
Guidelines on the Eco-labelling of Marine Capture Fisheries? This echoed the calls, outlined above, for
some methodology to assess the quality of any given eco-labelling scheme.
Four private eco-labelling and certification schemes gave presentations at the Round Table: the
Marine Stewardship Council11 (MSC), Friend of the Sea12 (FOS), KRAV13, and Naturland14. Their
presentations are briefly summarised here.
Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
The Marine Stewardship Council was established in 1997, initially as a joint project between WWF
and Unilever, but independent of them since 1999. MSC focuses on wild capture fisheries (not
aquaculture). It claims that 8% of the world‟s edible wild capture fisheries are engaged in the programme,
covering 5 million tonnes of seafood in all, representing by species some 42% of the global wild salmon
catch and 40% of the global prime white fish catch.
MSC is a standard setting body. Certification to the MSC standard is carried out by independent,
third-party, certifiers. MSC‟s „Fisheries Assessment Methodology‟, and „standardised assessment tree‟
focus on three pillars: independent scientific verification of the sustainability of the stock; the eco-system
impact of the fishery; and the effective management of the fishery. All three pillars are assessed on the
basis of a range of indicators. Aspects related to the species, the fishing gear used, and the geographical
area, are all included in the assessment. The unit of certification can be an entire fishery or a component of
a fishery. Where the client is a component of a fishery, the entire fishery and its management is still
assessed in order to evaluate the impact of that sub-group. The comprehensive nature of the MSC
assessment is reflected in the time and the cost of certification. Where management changes are required,
the certification process can take years; the cost of a full assessment can range from 10 000 -100 000 EUR.
MSC adjusted its assessment model in the light of the development of the FAO Guidelines for the
Eco-labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries (2005), and conducts regular
internal audits to ensure it maintains consistency with those guidelines. In response to concerns that the
MSC methodology was not applicable to data deficient fisheries (with particular implications for
developing countries) it is conducting trials on a risk-based assessment model specifically adapted to those
environments.
The Round Table heard that the MSC‟s pre-assessment (and even a pre-pre assessment) methodology
- which was initially designed to assess the potential of a client fishery for full assessment - is being used
by fisheries as a self-assessment tool, to define gaps in performance and to set a roadmap for improvement,
even where there is no intention of seeking full assessment or certification. The methodology is available
and can be used by any fishery with results remaining confidential (any assessment only becomes public
once the fishery has entered the full formal MSC assessment process).
11

www.msc.org

12

www.friendofthesea.org

13

www.krav.se

14

www.naturland.de

14

MSC‟s presence and credence in the market was evidenced by the extent to which it was the scheme
most often discussed at the Round Table.
Friend of the Sea (FOS)
Friend of the Sea was established in 2006 with links to the Earth Island Institute, which is also
responsible for the Dolphin Safe label. FOS has standards for wild capture fisheries and aquaculture fish
and seafood products, including fishmeal. It claims to cover 10% of the world‟s wild capture fisheries15.
FOS incorporates Greenpeace‟s criteria on social accountability, has requirements related to carbon
footprint, and will also certify products as organic. Its certification methodology is based on official data in
terms of stock assessment. The certification process involves a preliminary assessment of the candidate by
the FOS advisory board (usually taking 1 week). From there an independent certification body evaluates
existing official stock data (1 day), following which a local on-site audit is conducted (2-10 days), and a
traceability assessment is carried out (1 day). Audit of an aquaculture facility takes a maximum of 1 day;
audits are carried out once every three years.
KRAV and Naturland
KRAV and Naturland both originated as organic labels but have recently developed frameworks for
the certification of capture fisheries.
KRAV is a long-standing Swedish organic label that has developed a „standard for sustainable
fishing‟. Assessment against that standard includes a stock assessment, certification of vessels, an audit of
fishing techniques, as well as audits of landing and processing facilities to ensure traceability and chain of
custody guarantees.
Naturland was established in Germany in 1982 to certify organic farming. It later included
aquaculture in that scheme and more recently has added a “Scheme for Certification of Capture Fishery
Projects”. Projects are undertaken on the basis of social, economic and ecological sustainability criteria.
Naturland described one of its projects, “Eco-labelling of Nile Perch from Bukoba” in Tanzania, which far
from a simple assessment of a fishery for certification purposes was a hands-on development project,
carried out in partnership with the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), a Dutch importer, a
Tanzanian processor/exporter and more than 350 local fishers. A holistic approach was taken to improving
the sustainability of this segment of the Lake Victoria fishery; the project included aspects such as the
introduction of a mobile health service and options for diversifying employment opportunities. The MSC
pre-assessment methodology was used as a basis for the initial assessment of the fishery and the
development of a roadmap for management improvement.
Can they be compared?
The presentations by the eco-labelling schemes highlighted the difficulty of conducting any
benchmarking exercise to compare the quality and credence of one against the other. The various ecolabelling schemes are certifying different things. Their assessment methodologies differ considerably.
Moreover, the certification process can be used for different purposes. Friend of the Sea concentrates on
the sustainability of the stocks themselves: does the product come from a sustainable stock? MSC in
contrast concentrates on whether the product comes from a fishery that is sustainably managed. The former
approach offers a simple pass/fail result while the latter can be used in capacity building exercises
15

Eighty percent of FOS certified products - 8 million metric tonnes of its 10 million metric tonnes - comes solely from
Peruvian anchovies

15

including designing improvements in transitional fisheries. Both KRAV and Naturland offer opportunities
to use a certification process in the context of a social and economic development exercise.
The eco-labelling schemes themselves agreed that they were not doing the same thing and that it
would be dangerous to see them as inter-changeable. However, several of the schemes present at the
Round Table welcomed any exercise to benchmark the range of schemes against the FAO‟s Guildelines for
the Eco-labelling of Fish and Fishery products from Marine Capture Fisheries.
In response to a question about label fraud, all the schemes reported that they had seen no evidence of
products being labelled fraudulently.
Fishing industry – benefits and burdens
The capture segment of the fishing industry seems to be resigned to the existence of eco-labels and
increasingly sees certification as a „cost of doing business‟ in today‟s international markets for fish and
seafood. Fisheries seek certification when the market demands it. Buyer procurement strategies based on
fish and seafood certified as sustainable is a key driver, especially when those buyers, like Wal-Mart,
account for enormous volumes of sales.
For fishers the benefits of certification have been portrayed as: access to new markets, consolidation
of position in existing markets, and potential price premiums. After more than a decade of experience it
could be argued that the evidence of these gains related to marketing might have been exaggerated, but
other longer term gains related to management are starting to emerge.
There is only spotty evidence of a price premium accruing to certified fish and seafood. Some
examples of fisheries enjoying if not a price premium then less price volatility were given at the Round
Table, perhaps related to more direct supply relationships. In contrast, there was also evidence of retailers
recognized as „discounters‟ offering certified fish. As noted above, buyers claim that consumers are not
prepared to pay extra for certified fish. Elusive price premiums might therefore not be an effective
„incentive‟ for fisheries to seek certification.
As noted earlier some transitional fisheries are using certification methodologies – such as the MSC
pre-assessment – to initiate management improvements and subsequently to put pressure on governments
for assistance in that process. Fisheries implementing management improvements as a condition of
certification are further evidence that certification can be as much about management as about marketing.
Management improvements can lead to more efficient production with gains that are more long term than
those that can be realized in current market conditions; maintaining healthy stocks to enable future fishing
is the ultimate reward.
The Round Table also heard from fisheries considering they were already well managed prior to
certification, and claiming that the certification process made no difference to their management processes.
This may have been the case for the first batch of fisheries gaining certification; they sought certification as
proof that they were well managed, essentially for marketing purposes. The Alaska salmon fishery is a case
in point. Indeed the Alaska salmon fishery has chosen not to seek re-certification to the MSC scheme on
the basis that they already have credibility in the market as being well managed and sustainable. How this
will impact on their position in the market and on competitors in the same market will be interesting to
monitor.
The Round Table offered advice to the fishing industry, that regardless of their particular context they
needed to check the value of any eco-labelling scheme, and the preferences of potential customers and
markets, before embarking on any certification process.

16

Other issues related to certification process were raised, including:


The extent to which producers shoulder an unfair share of the cost burden associated with
certification;



A lack of consistency among certifiers: producers have complained that the ride towards
certification is easier for some than others as a result of different certifiers applying standards in a
more or less rigorous fashion.

The discussion around these two issues is described in more detail later.
Government Perspectives: the role of Public Authorities in Eco-labelling
Governments‟ overall interest in sustainable fisheries is to ensure food security for current and future
generations. The protection of the public goods of fish stocks and related eco-systems is an important part
of that equation. At another level governments have to ensure that the conditions are right for their fishing
industries to compete in international markets, where eco-labels are increasingly a part of buyer
specifications and a factor in market access.
Governments represented at the Round Table have taken quite diverse approaches to the eco-labelling
question. These are briefly described here16.
The Netherlands
For Minister Verburg, the Dutch Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, certification of
fish and fish products can provide an important contribution to sustainable fisheries. She stated that,
although certification is a market responsibility, in order to further stimulate sustainable fisheries she has
decided to facilitate certification of the Dutch fishing industry. She announced that she had recently made
EUR 1 million available for this. In his closing address the Dutch Ministry representative acknowledged
that because government regulatory measures had not achieved the required results it would be sensible to
use private sector mechanisms to incite better fisheries management. This is one of the most explicit
examples of a government utilising an eco-label to pursue its public policy goals.
France
In contrast, rather than endorsing any particular private scheme, the French government has chosen to
create its own national eco-label and related certification scheme. This decision was based on a feasibility
study17 undertaken in 2008 by the responsible French authority, FranceAgriMer. As part of that process, it
examined existing private eco-labels, including for consistency with the FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries. It concluded that of the existing ecolabels, only MSC was fully compliant with those guidelines. However, it also concluded that the MSC
model would not fit all fisheries. It decided to adopt a public framework to meet the needs of its fishing
industry as defined by the feasibility study; a scheme that was less costly than MSC, easily recognised by
consumers (along the lines of the French public quality label, Label Rouge), and one that was consistent
with the FAO guidelines but went beyond them with the inclusion of social and economic criteria. The
label will be operational by the end of 2009. Notably the public label will not preclude the certification of
16

France, Iceland and the European Union all gave presentations at the Round Table. Information on Canada and the
United States came from comments during discussion, while the situation in the Netherlands was communicated in the
Minister‟s opening address and closing comments by the Dutch representative.

17

The results of this feasibility study are available (in French) online at: www.ofimer.fr/Pages/Ofimer/Publications.html

17

French fisheries to other private eco-labels. Indeed certification to other labels will be encouraged; five
French fisheries are currently in assessment with the MSC.
Iceland
The Icelandic fishing industry,18with public support, has developed an Icelandic „logo‟ based on
Iceland‟s „Statement on Responsible Fisheries in Iceland‟ (signed in partnership by both government and
the fishing industry). While both partners, the Icelandic industry and government, are convinced that its
fisheries management is sound and that the Icelandic industry is engaged in responsible fishing, they
realised that they needed some mechanism for offering „proof‟ or documentation that this was the case.
The Icelandic logo will be a label of origin but with reference to sustainability. Certification will be
conducted by an independent internationally recognised and accredited certification body, which will in
essence involve third party certification of the government‟s performance in fisheries management. The
certification body will assess fishery conformance to a specification based on the FAO guidelines. The first
assessments will be conducted by 2010.
European Union
A presentation by the European Commission revealed that it was currently undertaking a revision of
the existing European generic eco-label, the “Flower” label, which includes a proposal for that scheme to
apply to fish and aquaculture. Overall the European Union will continue two existing policy pillars in
relation to eco-labels: the Flower label, and the establishment of minimum criteria for voluntary ecolabelling schemes in fisheries, based on the FAO guidelines. The EU also has resources available for
environmental projects.
In addition to the previous examples, there are countries where the approach has been to consider ecolabels and certification as private contracts, and hence has chosen not to participate directly in the private
sector certification of fisheries (although the relevant public body will provide information and data to both
fisheries applicants and certifying bodies). One country seemingly sits somewhere between the hands-on
approach of the former examples and the hands-off approach. It has introduced management changes in the
light of its industry‟s engagement with eco-labelling, such as redesigning data systems to fit the
information demands of certification, and taking steps to reduce administration and transaction costs.
Issues arising
Whatever approach governments decide to take towards eco-labelling and certification, they need to
be cognizant of the implications of that decision. If they decide to endorse a particular private scheme that
has current credence and acceptance in the market, does that imply a contingent liability if at some point in
the future that scheme fails to deliver promised gains or ceases to exist? Does it transfer too much power to
the private sector – with implications for policy sovereignty – especially if demands and requirements
ratchet up over time? In contrast, developing a national eco-label is expensive and may not be accepted by
the market. Ultimately it is large-scale buyers and their choice of which schemes they require their
suppliers to be certified to, who decide which eco-labels gain traction in the market. Key policy dilemmas
were highlighted at the Round Table and are outlined below.
Resource allocation and policy frameworks
Fisheries seeking certification are putting pressure on governments to allocate resources to areas
and/or activities that may not be entirely consistent with existing policy frameworks and trajectories.
18

www.fisheries.is

18

Governments have to decide if they should allocate resources accordingly, either financial or in
administrative and policy „effort‟; such as providing data, creating new data streams, conducting scientific
research, and creating and implementing the “conditions” required for certification (which may include
requirements to change management settings and/or surveillance). These responses to certification
conditions might affect the pace and timing of ongoing fisheries management reforms.
Responses to eco-labelling and certification should ideally be consistent with overall management
policy frameworks. If that management framework is based on principles of cost-recovery, should the costs
of the responses to certification be recovered from the eventual beneficiaries? On the other hand, if
fisheries seeking certification fail because the assessment process reveals deficiencies in the overall public
management of fisheries - a government responsibility - should governments foot the bill?
Equity and fairness
It is currently relatively cheaper, assuming economies of scale, for a larger fishing firm or larger
fishery to achieve certification. If that means that smaller firms competing in the same fishery, or fishers
operating in smaller or data poor fisheries, are shut out of lucrative international markets, governments will
be called on to deal with resulting equity issues. Do eco-labels and certification exacerbate the market
power and position of big players? If so, should governments help smaller operators by creating a level
playing field to allow them to compete? Governments might also be called on to assist fishing operators
facing high-risk markets, or those markets where demands for certification are more prevalent (demands
for certification tend to be stronger in some markets and species than in others). How should impacts on
trade and access to international markets influence governments‟ responses to eco-labels and certification?
Under another scenario, less sustainable fisheries may be competing for scarce public resources against
fisheries seeking certification or even recertification. Where should efforts be focused; on poor performers,
on transitional fisheries, or on fisheries likely to bring in export earnings? What is a „fair‟ allocation of
public funds for demands driven by a private market-based mechanism?
Which, if any, labels to invest in?
If governments decide to actively engage in the eco-labels phenomenon, other issues arise. Should
resources be available to fisheries seeking certification to any and all eco-labels or should governments
play a role in deciding which are the more robust and credible labels? In order to decide whether or not to
invest resources in certification and labelling of fisheries, governments need to judge which labels are
preferred by buyers and therefore affecting trade opportunities. Will there be an ongoing market for
certified products? Is the eco-label and associated standard stable and legitimate? What levers, if any, do
governments have to ensure ongoing good governance in a private scheme?
These questions again highlighted the value of some sort of benchmarking of the various eco-labelling
schemes on offer. Moreover, it also underscored the need for governments to consider, individually and
collectively, the essential components of an overall governance framework for sustainable fisheries, and
how private market mechanisms might fit into that framework.
A framework for global governance of fisheries sustainability
Eco-labels are a relatively recent development in fish trade and marketing. One presentation19 at the
Round Table put the development of eco-labelling into the context of the overall development of global
governance of the fishing industry; that eco-labelling can be seen as part of a continuum; from a “market

19

Peter Hajipieris, „Recent developments in the branding and marketing of fish and fish products‟

19

driven phase” to an aspirational “shared responsibility phase”. It was suggested that this evolution might
follow that occurring in the food safety arena.
Figure 1. Current ‘Change Phase’ of Fish Industry

Time - illustrative
Icing of Fish
Freezing of Fish
Fisheries

International
Fisheries

Global

Change

Change

Change

National

Food Safety

Industry

Centric

Quality - Freshness
Modified Air Packaging
Hazard Analysis HACCP

Responsible Farming

Now

Traceability
Sustainability
Eco-Labelling

21

© Birds Eye Iglo

Source : P. Hajipieris, Birds Eye Iglo.

The FAO20 presented the elements and history of the international framework for food safety
governance. Numerous comments from the floor concurred that public and private management
frameworks for food safety and quality might offer some pointers for developing a framework for global
governance related to fisheries sustainability. Given the particular risk profile of fish as a commodity,
managing both the food safety and the sustainability aspects is highly complex.
International framework for food safety governance
The joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius (Codex) plays a crucial role in setting international
standards and norms for food safety. It is the global reference point for national food safety agencies. The
food safety management system, HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) is recommended by
Codex and is mandatory in many countries. The Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP)
developed a specific code of practice on how to adapt HAACP principles and practices to fish and seafood
safety and quality along the value chain. In addition, the WTO‟s SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) and
TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) Agreements encourage harmonisation and mutual recognition of food
20

Lahsen Ababouch, FAO, "Public and private safety/quality objectives and principles‟.

20

safety standards as part of its regulatory framework to facilitate global trade. Codex is referred to explicitly
in the SPS Agreement and implicitly in the TBT Agreement. It has been referenced in trade disputes. Other
international standards organisations are also relevant, in particular the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) (in particular for certification and accreditation).
In addition to these public mechanisms, there is also a range of private food safety and quality
schemes. Many of these schemes are driven by coalitions of retailers. In practice they operate increasingly
as international standards as they define the relationships between globalised firms and the international
suppliers to those firms. Similar issues have been raised in the food safety area as have been raised in
relation to eco-labels and certification. What are the various roles of the public and private sector in food
safety governance? How are costs divided amongst the various stakeholders? And what are the impacts on
small-scale operators and developing countries if they fail to meet public let alone private sector
requirements?
Food safety governance versus sustainability governance
The current global framework for food safety governance however is several decades ahead of the
fledging framework for fisheries sustainability; Codex was created in 1963 and has evolved in line with
new developments in science and technology.
In contrast, in the fisheries sustainability area the development of a framework for global governance
only began in the 1980s. To date it includes, inter alia:


The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)(1982);



The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF)(1995);



The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA)(1995);



Various regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) and



The FAO Guidelines for the eco-labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture
Fisheries (2005).

In the sustainability area while there are obligations in international law (UNCLOS), and
internationally agreed guidelines to help implement those obligations (CCRF), there are no internationally
agreed sustainability standards, or standards for fisheries management. Therefore, there are no criteria,
beyond those contained in the CCRF, against which governments can judge their own performance in
fisheries management. The dearth of scientifically based standards for stock management and agreed
definitions of sustainability make global governance of fisheries sustainability more problematic than
managing for food safety where operational standards are well established.
In terms of private standards, those related to safety/quality and those related to sustainability (ecolabels) also differ. Private safety/quality schemes are largely based on internationally agreed standards and
management systems; for example, they all claim to be based on Codex, include HACCP, and incorporate
agreed ISO principles for certification and accreditation. Many were developed to help operationalise
international food safety standards and to verify compliance against them. In contrast, many eco-labelling
schemes preceded any public standard or guidelines specifically related to eco-labels. Indeed, the FAO
guidelines on eco-labels were developed in response to an anticipated proliferation of private eco-labelling
schemes. Moreover, in the face of a proliferation of private food safety management schemes, an

21

international coalition of retailers – through the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)21 – has benchmarked
the main private schemes as a first step towards, if not harmonisation, then mutual recognition of those
benchmarked schemes. Several Round Table participants drew attention to the GFSI as a potential model
for benchmarking eco-labelling schemes.
Finding the missing piece in the governance puzzle
What a comparison of the two areas – safety/quality and sustainability – suggests, however, is that in
the sustainability area a piece of the governance puzzle is missing.
A key question was put to the Round Table: “Is it time to think about developing some standards for
fisheries management that go beyond the current Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries?” Indeed,
would it be possible to build a „theoretical‟ or „aspirational‟ governance regime for sustainable fisheries
management that would include principles of good public governance, as well as market principles and
mechanisms, and the interplay between them? This would reflect the aspirational “shared responsibility
phase” referred to above.
There was some agreement that the MSC‟s „Fisheries Assessment Methodology‟ and related
“standardised assessment tree” is currently the most useful methodological tool for assessing whether a
fishery is sustainably managed. MSC revealed that it attempted to develop an overall generic assessment
model to assess a country‟s entire management system but came up against what it described as a
“roadblock”.22 Several participants argued that governments, not non-governmental organisations, should
be taking the lead in this area. Efforts to develop standards for fisheries – defining the essential elements of
the „infrastructure‟ for an effective fisheries management regime – and a related assessment model, based
on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, would be best placed in an intergovernmental
organisation where the process would be transparent, participatory and the outcomes subject to
international agreement. There was a suggestion that FAO would be the appropriate forum for further work
in this area, having both the relevant expertise and legitimacy. In any case, these issues require further
debate. The OECD and the FAO will consider them as part of their ongoing work programmes.
Scope of sustainability definitions
However „sustainability‟ is eventually defined, it needs to be transparent, consistent with
multilaterally agreed standards, standardised, and comprehensive. The Round Table urged caution in
attempting to build broader aspects of sustainability (like economic and social sustainability) into an
internationally applicable definition applying to fisheries and aquaculture. While these aspects are
important at the operational level – in particular in developing countries where adjustments to fisheries
management practices will fail if the social and economic impacts are not taken into consideration – they
should not be built into an overarching definition or criteria.
However, if retailers, through choice editing, start to include other ethical differentiators in their
fisheries procurement policies – carbon footprint, animal welfare, social equity were all mentioned but not
widely discussed – the definition equation might have to be reconsidered. In the meantime, it was agreed
that certification for aspects where there are no agreed definitions, standards, or assessment methodologies,
are liable to cause confusion.

21

www.ciesnet.com

22

Rupert Howes, Chief Executive, MSC.

22

Benchmarking eco-labelling schemes
While there are no operationalised standards for sustainability or sustainable fisheries, the FAO
Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries are seen as
providing acceptable minimum criteria for eco-labelling schemes, against which eco-labelling schemes
could be benchmarked. The main aspects of the guidelines were outlined at the Round Table and are
repeated here.
FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries
The voluntary FAO guidelines include minimum substantive requirements and criteria for any
fisheries eco-labelling scheme. They also define the procedural and institutional aspects of any scheme.
Any scheme should include the requirements that:


The fishery is conducted under a management system that is based on good practice including the
collection of adequate data on the current state and trends of the stocks and based on the best
scientific evidence;



The stock under consideration is not over-fished and



The adverse impacts of the fishery on the eco-system are properly assessed and effectively
addressed.

In terms of procedural and institutional aspects, any eco-labelling scheme should encompass:


The setting of certification standards;



The accreditation of independent certifying bodies and



The certification that a fishery and the product chain of custody are in conformity with the
required standard and procedures.

Designing an assessment methodology
Round Table participants concurred that a methodology for testing the relative merits of the various
schemes would be useful for the range of stakeholders: governments making investment decisions, retailers
and brand owners as a basis for choosing suppliers, and for the fisheries industry seeking both a tool for
management improvement and the scheme most likely to offer market returns.
Some benchmarking exercises have already been undertaken23. As noted above, the French authority,
FranceAgriMer conducted an evaluation of existing eco-labelling schemes as part of its process to
determine whether or not to develop its own public eco-label; it concluded that MSC was the only scheme
consistent with the FAO guidelines. The UK Seafish Authority is leading an international process to study
various eco-labelling schemes; it will report later in 2009. At the Round Table there was a suggestion that
the parent body of the international retail consortium – CIES – responsible for the GFSI benchmarking of
private food safety management schemes, might take on such a task. A participant with direct links to
CIES considered that while CIES would probably be interested in being involved in such an exercise it was
unlikely to want to lead it. It was also noted that many retailers do not have specific expertise in the
fisheries area.
23

Since the Round Table, WWF have also initiated a process to benchmark eco-labelling schemes.

23

As noted earlier, although most eco-labelling schemes claim to be consistent with the FAO guidelines,
there is currently no agreed framework for assessment or for benchmarking them. There have been calls for
the FAO to conduct such a benchmarking exercise. The legal implications of carrying out such an exercise
and its consistency with FAO‟s mandate, as well as different approaches to the benchmarking question will
be discussed at a forthcoming meeting of the FAO‟s Sub-Committee on Fish Trade. The development of an
assessment or benchmarking methodology, without carrying out the benchmarking itself, will be one
option discussed.
Any benchmarking exercise would have to be transparent and independent; the FAO or some other
multilateral organisation would seem the most appropriate forum for such an activity. The need for a
separate or integrated process for private standards related to aquaculture was also raised but not debated.
Interested countries will need to pursue the idea further in the context of the FAO‟s current work on
certification in aquaculture.
Areas requiring further debate
The Round Table also highlighted a number of areas where tensions exist currently in the operation of
eco-labelling and certification and require resolution. These include:


The costs of certification and who pays for what;



The impacts of eco-labels on international trade and market access;



Ensuring eco-labelling is inclusive of developing countries and more generally data deficient
fisheries;



The potential for integrated traceability and opportunities for developing synergies and reducing
costs and



The quality, consistency and capacity of certifiers.

Costs of certification – who should pay for what?
Producers in particular complain about the costs of certification to an eco-labelling scheme. The costs
vary enormously depending on the scheme chosen, and even in relation to the same scheme depending on
the size and complexity of the fishery. As perhaps the most comprehensive scheme, in that it assesses the
overall fishery and its management, the cost of certification to MSC could vary between EUR 10 000 and
EUR 100 000. This would be prohibitive for many small operators; developing countries in particular have
raised concerns about costs.
MSC reiterated that it is the standard owner and not the certifier and therefore does not receive the
revenues from certification. Certification costs vary according to certifiers and their audit fees. MSC only
receives revenues from the use of the MSC logo (the logo fee amounts to some 0.05% on the wholesale
price of fish coming from a certified fishery). MSC further argued that costs should fall as a result of
improvements to its decision tree that leaves less room for certifier interpretation. Certifiers present
concurred with this and argued that as they became more familiar with the criteria of any scheme, they also
became more efficient and hence could contain costs.
Arguably more problematic than the actual costs of certification is the distribution of those costs.
Currently the costs of certification are generally borne by harvesters. The „distribution of costs‟ issue is
particularly acute when the improvements required, or „conditions of certification‟, relate to the overall
management of the fishery, which is generally the responsibility of public authorities. If fish from a
particular fishery is excluded from a market or buyer (one requiring only certified product) on the basis of

24

judgments about whether a government has lived up to its obligations for sustainable fisheries
management, then who should pay for improvements? An NGO representative told the Round Table that
never have industry and NGOs been more in agreement that when the costs of certification relate to
government policy failure (poorly managed fisheries) then regulatory agencies should assume a fair share
of the financial burden. The flip side is that when fisheries are well-managed, the fishing industry benefits
from easy certification.
Costs also need to be seen in the context of potential benefits. Cost/benefit analysis is difficult
because the costs of certification are typically short-term while the benefits might accrue only in the longterm. As noted earlier any price premium accruing to certified fish and seafood is typically too low or
insignificant and hence is not likely to offset the costs of certification or related management
improvements. However, in the long-term fish and seafood from well-managed fisheries should be cheaper
to produce, so operating costs should be lower. Management improvement - either overall management or
fishery specific - is a long-term investment.
As noted earlier, some governments use public funds to help pay for the costs of certification. This too
raises issues of „who benefits?‟ Is it possible to define a formula whereby industry pays the component of
certification that relates to private benefit (market access, price premiums), and government pays the
component that relates to its responsibilities to manage marine resources sustainably? It appeared that
countries where there was ongoing dialogue between industry and government were further ahead in their
thinking on these issues. This would be another area where further international dialogue and sharing of
experiences would be useful; broad stakeholder participation in those discussions would seem sensible.
Impacts on Market access and International Trade
The FAO Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries
state that voluntary standards, including eco-labels, should not distort global markets and should not create
unnecessary obstacles to international trade. There was surprisingly little discussion on the impacts of ecolabels on international trade at the Round Table. However, a few key issues were raised.
It was acknowledged that eco-labels are becoming a market access issue. In some markets, market
access for fish and seafood is increasingly determined by certification requirements driven by large-scale
buyers. Requirements for only certified fish and seafood could mean that products can be excluded from
the market due to perceptions of the buyer/retailer about whether governments (from exporting countries)
have lived up to their obligations for good management. What recourse governments have to challenge
these assessments and the requirements themselves is still largely unknown. Related discussions have been
held in the context of the WTO but to date there has been no formal clarification of the jurisdiction to
challenge non-governmental actors in that forum.
Whether public sector financial support for eco-labelling certification could be considered a „subsidy‟
and/or notifiable in the context of WTO mechanisms was also raised. If governments pay outright for
certification is that a subsidy to its industry? If it leads to a trade advantage or improved market access then
should it be notifiable? However, if public funds are used only for developing the conditions or
infrastructure (that is, overall improvements in fisheries management) that would ease the path to
certification, then the case is less clear. As noted earlier, several governments have „subsidised‟ the
certification of their fisheries.
Do eco-labels constitute a barrier to trade? The Round Table agreed that they could be perceived as a
barrier to trade, but given the resulting benefits for overall fisheries sustainability, maybe it was a
necessary and beneficial one. Clearly there is a need for further discussion on these issues. In particular

25

there is a need to consider whether eco-labelling schemes as they currently operate discriminate against
developing countries. Standards, whether public or private, must be inclusive.
Developing countries – participation is crucial
Almost 80% of world fishery production takes place in developing countries. Their exports represent
about half of world exports of fish and fishery products by value and about 60% by volume 24. The Round
Table agreed that attempts to improve the management and sustainability of the world‟s fisheries would
fail if developing countries were not part of the equation.
The relative dearth of representatives from developing countries meant that the impacts of eco-labels
and certification on developing countries were not widely discussed. As described earlier, Naturland‟s25
pilot project related to Nile Perch in Tanzania showed how an eco-labelling certification process could
facilitate a wider development exercise with ecological, social and economic sustainability goals.
The Executive Secretary of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization26 gave his views on the
opportunities presented by eco-labelling for developing countries. He argued that the MSC pre-assessment
methodology was an effective audit tool that could be used to identify necessary management
improvements. The Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization sponsored a MSC pre-assessment (conducted by
third-party audit in 2007/8), the results of which contributed substantively to the development of the Lake
Victoria Fisheries Management Plan (2009 - 2014). The pre-assessment indicated a lack of readiness for a
full MSC assessment, but more importantly highlighted gaps and shortfalls in existing management
strategies; for example, the need for a specific management and stock recovery plan. That information was
used to put pressure on the public authorities to respond to shortfalls highlighted in the assessment and
resulted in the development of an overall management plan. The presenter concluded that in terms of
improvements in fisheries management, eco-labelling and other private standards, are not a substitute for
but rather complementary to mandatory standards; he referred to government requirements as “the stick”
and eco-labels and other market mechanisms as “the carrots”.
A voice from the Round Table floor briefly raised some of the concerns expressed in other forums by
developing countries; that certification was typically too costly and methodologies ill-suited to data- poor
highly fragmented developing country fisheries, and that in many developing countries they were
perceived as posing a serious barrier to market access and trade. These issues have been documented but
were not debated at the Round Table. However, there was agreement that further effort was required to
develop methodologies that are appropriate to developing country environments. As noted above, MSC is
piloting a risk-based assessment methodology for data deficient fisheries. Many fisheries in developing
countries might indeed be sustainable but do not have the data to prove it. This is also true for some
artisanal fisheries in developed countries; an uncertified fishery does not necessarily equate to an
unsustainable fishery.
The Round Table concluded that for both developed and developing countries there is a need to
develop strategies for incentivising transitional fisheries; that is, some mechanism to reward positive
change in fisheries working towards improved management but not at the point where they could gain
certification to an eco-label, or to recognise good practice in fisheries that for some reason do not meet the
criteria for eco-labelling but demonstrate responsible behaviour. In this context it will be important not to

24

FAO (2009) State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2008. Rome.

25

Dr Stefan Bergleiter, „Certified sustainable Artisanal Fishery; first experiences from the pilot project with Nile Perch
Fishery in Tanzania‟.

26

www.lvfo.org

26

„lower the bar‟ by creating some second-class certification or label. During the development of the FAO‟s
guidelines on eco-labels developing countries specifically argued against this.
Integrated traceability – developing synergies and reducing costs
Fish and seafood certified to an eco-labelling scheme does not always end up as a labelled product on
sale to the consumer. While many eco-labelling schemes are designed as business-to-consumer models
(based on the notion of consumer choice driving the demand for sustainable fish), increasingly it is the
business-to-business part of the model that carries the most value. The certification process rather than the
label is the important element and in particular the traceability guarantees that the process offers to retailers
and brand owners promoting sustainability in their procurement and corporate social responsibility
strategies. Traceability is key to the success of any eco-label. It is the guarantee that the fish and seafood
on sale actually comes from a fishery certified as sustainable.
Round Table participants heard two presentations related to traceability. Traceability is the ability to
track the origins of a product, the processes it went through, and where it ended up; in the case of fish and
seafood – from boat/farm to fork. Chain of custody is a more specific concept and guarantees not only the
ability to trace products but also to ensure their integrity throughout the value chain. In terms of eco-labels,
chain of custody includes guarantees that certified product is not mixed with non-certified product.
Traceability systems are well established in the fisheries sector, in particular in relation to food safety,
but also to catch certification, country of origin, and mechanisms for illegal, unregulated and uncontrolled
fishing (IUU). Traceability is also a significant feature of private safety/quality standards and schemes.
Various stakeholders in the fisheries value chain therefore face multiple public and private traceability
requirements, each with their own requirements for verification and documentation (see Figure 2.
Are integrated traceability systems serving multiple purposes possible and feasible? Is it possible to
have one system that would serve multiple uses: food safety; catch certification; IUU and the chain of
custody aspects of eco-labels?
Integrating traceability systems for multiple purposes - both public regulation and private certification
schemes - would help to reduce the costs currently associated with multiple verification systems and
documentation. Technical tools - computerized and internet-based - are available for these purposes and
were demonstrated at the Round Table. However, more multi-stakeholder discussion would be required on
user requirements and whether or not the public and private agents currently requiring various levels of
traceability (specificity) would be prepared to give up their own systems in favour of an integrated multipurpose system. There was scant discussion on these issues at the Round Table. Further inquiry would be
useful. Integrated traceability is part of the current FAO work programme.

27

Figure 2. Traceability drivers in the food sector

Traceability drivers in the food sector:
Certification
(BRC, IFS,
Traceability
ISO 22000, ..) requirements

Avoid repunching

Labour/cost
reduction

Optimal
production
Industrial
statistics
Make
or buy

HACCP

Food
safety
Common
Food Law

Traceability

Trace
contamination,
Enable recall
§18, §19

Feedbackloops

Chain
communication

Integration

Labeling

of systems

laws

Legislation

Profiling

Environmental

Non-IUU

load, food miles,

Consumer

fish

emissions,

preference

Competitive
advantage

resource use

Documentation
of sustainability
Petter
Petter Olsen
Olsen 22/04/09
22/04/09 -- ©©Nofima
Nofima Market - May be copied if source is acknowledged

Source : Petter Olsen, , NOFIMA, ‘Traceability: definitions, drivers and standards’

Certifiers – quality, consistency and capacity
Producers have complained that the ride towards certification is easier for some than others as a result
of different certifiers applying standards in a more or less rigorous fashion. This applies to fisheries in
different countries, or even different operators in the same fishery seeking certification to the same ecolabelling scheme. MSC argues that better standardisation of assessment decision trees is helping achieve
greater consistency; they have undertaken work to improve consistency and to reduce the scope for
certifier „interpretation‟. The clarity of the standard itself is also crucial. Certifiers present at the Round
Table stressed the importance of the quality of the standard and also suggested that over time consistency
would improve as certifiers become more familiar with applying any given standard.
Poor quality certifiers also appear to be an issue, as is an apparent shortage of certifiers is some
jurisdictions. Because certification of certifiers is the responsibility of independent accreditation bodies,
the standard owner does not have much, if any, control over who actually carries out audits against their
standard. It was asked: “Who audits the auditors?” International standards for auditing and accreditation
should apply. As the demand for certification grows the pool of auditors will need to expand. The range of
certification schemes - not only eco-labels but also private safety/quality standards and those applying to
aquaculture – will put increasing pressure on existing capacity. Will the market provide or is some specific
capacity building required? Should governments take some initiative on this front? These questions also
require more discussion.

28

The way forward – areas for attention
The Round Table provided a unique venue for the various stakeholders in the eco-labelling
phenomenon to share their particular perspectives and motivations. The dialogue proved to be rich and
should continue at both the national and international levels. The Round Table clarified points of tension
and key areas where further debate and action is required, in particular:


Defining a workable and fair system for the distribution of the costs of certification. Each
government will have to decide the boundaries of its own financial engagement in eco-labelling.
Avenues for sharing experiences would help to expose the consequences of the various
approaches and levels of engagement, and would help to clarify the respective roles of the public
and private sectors in relation to eco-labels and certification.



How eco-labels, and governments‟ responses to them, impact on market access and international
trade requires further debate and empirical evidence. Clarifying the status of market mechanisms
in relation to WTO mechanisms, and whether funding certification amounts to a subsidy, requires
further research. International organisations, OECD, FAO, and WTO, all have a role to play in
facilitating international dialogue and agreement.



Strategies for incentivising transitional fisheries need to be developed. This includes some
mechanism to reward positive change in fisheries working towards improved management, and
to recognise good practice in fisheries that demonstrate responsible behaviour, some of which
will not be ideal candidates for certification to an eco-label. Eco-labels provide a „burden of
proof‟ for top performers; it is important that other fisheries are not left behind. In particular,
given their importance in international fish trade, developing countries need to be included in
strategies to improve fisheries management and sustainability; appropriate assessment
methodologies and incentive formulae need to be developed.



Calls for benchmarking eco-labelling schemes should not be ignored. At the very least a
methodology for assessing any eco-labelling scheme against the FAO Guidelines for the
Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries would give fishing
operators, governments and buyers a tool to evaluate the credence of any existing or future ecolabelling scheme. There was some agreement that FAO was best placed to take this work
forward.



Gaps in the framework for global governance of fisheries sustainability need to be closed.
Missing pieces of the governance puzzle were identified including standards for fisheries
management and an agreed and shared definition of „sustainable fisheries‟. The development of a
theoretical or aspirational governance regime for sustainable fisheries management could be
considered. It would serve as a self-assessment tool for governments wishing to test their own
fisheries management performance. The OECD and the FAO could work together to develop an
approach to this work.

The Round Table confirmed that the various stakeholders in the fisheries supply chain all have an
interest in and are committed to fisheries sustainability. There was overall consensus that eco-labels have a
role to play in incentivising better fisheries management. The challenge now is to ensure that the pressure
and momentum generated by that market-based instrument can be harnessed to complement public
measures for sustainable and responsible fisheries management. This means aligning the various incentives
so that the private sector, NGOs and governments, both at the national level and internationally, can work
together towards the mutual goal of sustainable fisheries management. Eco-labels provide a nexus between
marketing and management and are an increasingly important part of the fisheries sustainability equation.

29

AGENDA
22 April 2009: INFORMATION DAY
Chaired by Alfons SCHMID, Consultant

W E LCO M E b y t he C ha ir
O PE N IN G by Gerda VERBURG,
Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality of The Netherlands
W E LCO M E R EM ARK S A ND I N TRO D UC T IO N by OECD and FAO
Session 1: S E T T IN G T H E SC E N E
Recent developments in the branding and marketing of fish and fish products
Peter HAJIPIERIS, Birds Eye
The consumer‟s perspective
Jonathan BANKS, AC Nielsen Consumer Research
Economics of labelling: Distribution of costs and benefits
Sven ANDERS, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada
Who defines sustainability and the division of roles between public authorities and private actors? How
to deal with the issue of legitimacy: A government perspective
Lori RIDGEWAY, DFO, Canada
Session 2: O B J E C T IV E S AN D PR I NC IP L E S FO R C E R TI FI CA T IO N
Public and private safety/quality objectives and principles
Lahsen ABABOUCH, FAO
Objectives and principles of certification in capture fisheries vs. aquaculture
Yngve TORGERSEN, Norway
Session 3: INTEGRATED TRACEABILITY
Traceability: Definitions, drivers and standards
Petter OLSEN, NOFIMA, Norway
Practical implications of dealing with a variety of standards along the fisheries value chain
Ole Henning FREDRIKSEN, Tracetracker
Session 4: E XP E RI E NC E S WI TH PR I VA T E E C O - L AB EL L I N G SCH E M ES
MSC, Rupert HOWES
Friend of the Sea, Paolo BRAY
KRAV, Lars HÄLLBOM
Naturland, Stefan BERGLEITER
Discussion
Su mma ry by the Chair

31

23 April 2009: ROUND TABLE ON ECO-LABELLING
Chaired by John CONNELLY, NFI, United States

O pe ni ng o f Ro un d Ta bl e a n d e x p la na t io n s o f o bjec tiv e s by the Chair
Session 5: E CO - L AB E L S IN FI SH E R IE S: K E Y I SS U ES
Do eco-labels have an impact on the operators along the value chain (e.g. changing incentive
structure)?
Peter HAJIPIERIS, Birds Eye
Discussion
Do eco-labels have an impact on public institutions/policy making?
Crick CARLETON, Nautilus Consultants
Discussion
Do labelling requirements create particular marketing difficulties, in particular market access
problems for developing country producers?
Dick NYEKO, Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization
Discussion
Session 6: T H E RO L E O F PUB L IC A UT H O R I T I ES I N EC O - LAB E L L I N G
EU, Richard BATES, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
France, Anne-Kristen LUCBERT, FranceAgriMer
Iceland, Kristján ÞÓRARINSSON
Discussion led by the Chair with panel participation
Potential issues:
 How to ensure that eco-labelling schemes are transparent?


Who monitors whether labels are truthful?



What is a truthful message when we deal with sustainable fisheries?



What role do the voluntary FAO guidelines play?



Who monitors that guidelines or standards (e.g. minimum substantive criteria) are
followed by the certification schemes?



Who certifies the certifiers?



Is a public regulatory framework required to regulate private schemes?

Discussion led by Lori RIDGEWAY, DFO, Canada
 Future developments, including the implications for the economics of fisheries
certification


Practical policy responses and options for policy makers when considering certification
and eco-labelling issues in fisheries

32

SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES

Lahsen ABABOUCH, Ph. D.
Chief of the Fish Utilization and Marketing Service at the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) in Rome, Italy
Before joining FAO in June 2000, Mr. Ababouch was Professor at the King Hassan II Institute of
Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, in Rabat, Morocco, where in addition to teaching and research, he
held advisory positions for research, industry outreach, bilateral trade agreements and agribusiness. He has
written some 80 scientific publications, including books and book chapters, and some 145 scientific and
technical communications in seafood technology, safety, quality and market access requirements. In 1996,
he was awarded the King Baudouin Award for Excellence in Research by the International Foundation for
Science (IFS, Stockholm, Sweden) and in 2004, the Distinguished Leadership Award for Internationals by
the University of Minnesota (USA). Mr. Ababouch has wide experience in training, research and capacity
building in fish and seafood technology, safety and trade, in over 60 developing countries mainly in Africa,
Arab countries, Asia and the Pacific.

Sven ANDERS, Ph. D.
Agricultural Economist, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta, Department of Rural Economy
After obtaining a PhD in agricultural economics from the Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Germany
Dr. Anders worked at the University of Massachusetts Amherst before taking an endowed position at the
University of Alberta. Dr Anders research interest lies in the application of economic theory and analytical
methods to advance the understanding of the economics vertical food marketing and retailing, at the
crossroad of consumer behaviour, food quality, safety and food policies. Together with North American
colleagues and partners in Europe, his research program focuses on the applied analysis of market
behaviour, and consumer choice data at the retail-level. His research contribution to fishery economics has
been in the analysis of the trade effects of food standards and border detention policies in the United States
on developing country seafood exports. The goal if his research is to contribute to the better understanding
of the functioning of food markets and agri-food trade under the influence of changing policy frameworks,
market trends and socio-economic factors over time. Dr Anders has published in several economic journals
and invited for presentation at numerous international conferences.

33

Jonathan BANKS
European Business Insight Director, Nielsen
Jonathan Banks is Nielsen‟s European Business Insight Director, based in Oxford, UK. During his 30
year career spanning FMCG manufacturing and retail, he has held senior sales and marketing positions in
multinationals. As Nielsen‟s European consumer analyst, Mr. Banks specialises in tracking and predicting
consumer behaviour and trends, to help manufacturers and retailers formulate winning strategies. He is a
widely recognized figure on consumer and FMCG trends in British and international media, as well as
being a prominent speaker and moderator at key industry events around the world. He has 2 children, lives
near London, and is making diminishing contributions to the Old Latymerians 3rd XI football team.

Richard BATES
Policy Officer, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
Richard Bates works in the European Commission as a Policy Officer in the Trade and Markets Unit
of the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Directorate-General. He studied marine biology and later food
science at UCD Dublin and previously worked for over 16 year in inshore fisheries and aquaculture
development with BIM – the Irish Sea Fisheries Board. During his almost 14 years with the European
Commission Mr. Bates has worked with fisheries and aquaculture policy, principally in relation to health,
environment and trade issues. His work currently includes ecolabelling and legislation for organic
aquaculture.

Stefan BERGLEITER
Fish and Seafood, Naturland
Stefan Bergleiter is a biologist with a focus on fish ecology and did his thesis on Amazon
ichthyofauna.
1998, he joint Naturland, an international certifier of organic products, to build up the organic
aquaculture department. He has been initiating and coordinating, numerous pilot projects with certified
organic shrimp, Pangasius and Tilapia aquaculture in Latin America and Southeast Asia.
An important aspect of this activity in organic aquaculture is also to contribute to IFOAM
(International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) and EU developments on that field. From
2007 on, Mr. Bergleiter has been working in the first Naturland capture fishery project in Lake Victoria
(Bukoba/Tanzania), which is a PPP project supported by German GTZ.

34

Paolo BRAY
Founder, Friend of the Sea; European Director of the Earth Island Institute’s Dolphin-Safe Project
Paolo Bray, Italian born in Wiesbaden (Germany) in 1968. Lived, studied and worked in Switzerland,
UK, Italy and in most European, North and South American countries. His economist background
(University Bocconi of Milan) has determined his approach to environmental issues and related project
development, providing him with full understanding of companies‟ needs and objectives and eco-market
drives.
This, together with strong ethical and conservation focused approach, allowed Mr. Bray to
successfully start, develop and lead some of the most influent and widespread sustainable fisheries
certification schemes: the Dolphin-Safe project (www.dolphinsafetuna.org) of the San Francisco based
NGO Earth Island Institute (www.earthisland.org) , and the Friend of the Sea project
(www.friendofthesea.org) for the certification and promotion of seafood from sustainable fisheries and
aquaculture.

Crick CARLETON
Founder and Chief Executive, Nautilus Consultants
Crick Carleton is an experienced fishery sector analyst and development specialist, drawing on 30
years as a full-time consultant, and work in over eighty countries around the globe. He is a natural systems
thinker and inter-disciplinary specialist, searching out and working with the patterns that underlie natural
systems and human behaviour. This systems focus runs through his academic training – from biochemistry
and the natural sciences, to sociology, marketing, and technological economics. It also runs through his
consultancy work with senior managers within the public and private sectors on matters of fishery policy,
international trade and marketing, improved decision-making, structural reform, and development. His
involvement with the seafood trade and the commercial and socio-economic dimensions of fishing and
fishing communities brought him into dialogue with the Marine Stewardship Council during its formative
years. Mr. Carleton subsequently participated in the Airlie House revision of the MSC‟s Principles and
Criteria to the current standard, and has contributed to debate on its application to small-scale fisheries and
aquaculture. More recently he has worked with the certification body Food Certification International
(FCI) to develop its accreditation as a certifier to the MSC standard, and to head up most of its MSC
assessments and pre-assessments to date. Mr. Carleton balances an increasing workload within Europe
with development, restructuring and privatisation work in emerging and transition economies in both
temperate and tropical locations around the world.

35

John CONNELLY
President, National Fisheries Institute
John Connelly became the President of the National Fisheries Institute in March 2003. NFI is the
nation‟s leading trade association advocating for the fish and seafood business. With commercial fishing
vessel owners, aquaculture farmers, importers, processors, distributors, restaurants and grocery markets as
members, NFI represents the fish and seafood commerce chain -- from “water to table.” NFI lobbies
Congress and regulatory agencies, serves as the seafood community‟s spokesperson with the media, and
provides technical advice to its members. He also served as Chairman of International Coalition of
Fisheries Associations and is a founding member of the International Coalition of Aquaculture
Associations. Intrafish, a seafood industry publication, named John as the “2006 Man of Year.” In 2007,
he was named to the Marine Stewardship Council Board of Trustees, a nongovernmental group recognized
as the leader in fisheries certification.
Before joining NFI, John Connelly served in a number of assignments at the American Chemistry
Council, including Vice President – Member Relations, Corporate Secretary, State Federation Liaison, and
Chemical Plant Security Team Leader. In those roles, he led efforts on both the business and advocacy
sides of the USD 110 million organization. Prior to the ACC, Connelly served five years in the United
States Navy, in both shipboard and staff assignments. He continues to serve his country as a Captain in the
United States Navy Reserve, with specializations in political-military affairs and terrorism consequence
management. He currently serves at NAVSEA, the Navy‟s engineering command.
John Connelly is a 1984 graduate of The College of the Holy Cross, with a degree in History. He also
earned an MBA at night from George Mason University. He and his wife, Margaret McCloskey Connelly
(also a graduate of Holy Cross), have four children and live in McLean, Virginia.

Ole-Henning FREDRIKSEN
CEO and Co-founder, TraceTracker Innovation ASA
Mr. Fredriksen is one of Scandinavia‟s leading business strategists and serial entrepreneurs with over
two decade‟s experience in business process engineering and business transformation. This expertise has
been applied in founding and incubating eight companies including TraceTracker Innovation ASA.
TraceTracker‟s vision is to deliver global traceability, "from farm to fork", on screen, showing
product origin, production history, storage, transportation and distribution. The company‟s software-based
services have been used around the world in a wide range of food industries to cut costs and increase
profits by proving product quality, safety, and sustainability. In 2004/05, it was chosen as the backbone
technology for two major EU traceability projects, “Trace” and “Seafood Plus.” Shortly thereafter it was
also utilized in a test production to monitor the spread of the Avian Flu (HPAI) virus in Vietnam with
interactive maps. Today TraceTracker operates global offices in both America/Canada, Europe and Asia,
and work with partners such as IBM, SAP, SGS, and GS1 to implement the solutions. Furthermore, the
World Economic Forum has recently recognized the company as a 2009 Technology Pioneer.

36

Peter HAJIPIERIS
Director of Sustainability & External Affairs, Birds Eye Iglo
Mr. Hajipieris is a graduate food technologist, with over 28 years experience in the seafood and fresh
foods industries driving industry and business improvement programmes at the UK‟s Seafish Industry
Authority and then at Sainsbury‟s and Tesco, two major UK supermarket chains. Mr. Hajipieris is now at
Birds Eye Iglo, a major European frozen seafood and frozen food company operating in 10 countries where
he leads the development of sustainable policy across all food areas and operations.

Lars HÄLLBOM
Standard Developer, KRAV
KRAV is a key player in the organic market in Sweden. KRAV develops organic standards and and
standards for sustainable fishing and promotes the KRAV label. KRAV is organised as an incorporated
association with, at present, 28 members. They represent farmers, processors, trade and also consumer,
environmental and animal welfare interests.
Mr. Hällbom holds a PhD in plant physiology and has ten years of research experience in aquaculture.
He has gained 20 years of experience as environmental consultant and dealt with a broad range of topics,
e.g. ecotoxicological hazards with chemicals and pharmaceuticals and environmental aspects of food
production, transports and consumption.
Rupert HOWES
Chief Executive, MSC
Rupert Howes became Chief Executive of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) in October 2004 the world‟s leading marine eco-labelling and certification programme for wild capture fisheries. He was
previously Director of the Sustainable Economy Programme at Forum for the Future, the UK's leading
sustainable development organization, a Senior Research Fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit,
Sussex University and a Research Officer at the International Institute for Environment and Development.

Anne-Kristen LUCBERT
Project Manager, Quality and Standardization of Seafood Products, FranceAgriMer
Anne-Kristen Lucbert has been working for OFIMER (French seafood agency) since 2001. This
establishment has become now FranceAgriMer since 1st April 2009. This national establishment, in charge
of agricultural and seafood products, is the result of the merging of 5 public establishments Office de
l‟Elevage, ONIGC, VINIFLHOR, ONIPPAM and OFIMER) and it works under the supervision of the
French Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

37

Dick NYEKO
Executive Secretary, Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization
Mr. Nyeko was born in Uganda. He holds a B.Sc & M.Sc (Fisheries) Makerere University Kampala
Uganda. He has been working in Civil Service in Fisheries Management (1988 – 2008); as a Commissioner
for Fisheries Resources / Head Competent Authority Fisheries (1999 – 2008) and more recently as
Executive Secretary, Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (2008 – present).

Petter OLSEN
Senior Scientist, NOFIMA
Mr. Olsen has an MSc in software engineering, applied mathematics and operational research from
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. He is a senior scientist at “Nofima” (the Norwegian food
research institute) working with applications of ICT in the food and fish industry, especially related to
production management, simulation and traceability. Mr. Olsen initiated, co-ordinated and participated in
numerous food traceability projects, responsible for developing methods, standards and software tools for
traceability in various sectors. He is a leader of ISO TC234/WG1 (seafood traceability) and serves as an
adviser to the EU, various EU-projects, the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Nordic Industrial Fund on
these subjects.

Lorraine (Lori) RIDGEWAY
Director General, International Policy and Integration, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Lori has been Director General, International Policy and Integration, at Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO) since July 2004, having first joined DFO as Director General, Economic and Policy Analysis in
1999. Her responsibilities include international fisheries policy, international oceans and biodiversity,
trade and international business development, and international integration and coordination for DFO.
She is responsible for the development and implementation of Canada‟s International Governance
Strategy, integrating activities related to international science, sustainable fisheries, international oceans
and marine biodiversity, and international multilateral instruments, in cooperation with other federal
departments. More recently she has been responsible for DFO's International Strategy which integrates
DFO‟s activities under the Governance Strategy with International Trade and Business Development and
Safety and Security. Domestically she is the federal co-chair of the federal-provincial Task Group for
Ecolabelling, which is charged with development of a national ecolabelling strategy, under the auspices of
the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers.
Prior to working in DFO, Lori spent 3 years as a Director of Operations for macroeconomic policy at
the Privy Council Office (PCO) and 16 years at the Department of Finance, including 3 years in Paris as
Canada‟s Finance Counselor in its Permanent Delegation to the OECD. Prior to joining the federal
government in 1981, Lori was as a faculty member of the economics departments of the University of
Alberta and later at University of Calgary.

38

Lori is active in international fora, including as:






Recent 3-year Co-chair of the UN Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the
Sea
Current Chair of APEC Fisheries Working Group
Chair of the OECD Committee of Fisheries from 2000-2006,
Chair of several ad hoc international meetings, especially under auspices of OECD
(globalization, environmentally subsidies, policy coherence for development)
Active in other fora (FAO, other UN, Global Oceans Forum) and related activities.

Lori‟s staff is active in numerous activities in other fora (most notably WTO, CBD, Arctic Council
and bilateral and regional arrangements)

Alfons SCHMID
Independent Consultant
As from January 2008 Alfons L. (Fons) Schmid is working as independent consultant advising Royal
Ahold in the field of International Food Legislation. In his new consultant role Mr. Schmid is determent to
continue contributing to the responsible and healthy growth of companies and organizations in the food
and agri sector, to the benefit of all in- and external stakeholders. Mr. Schmid read law at Erasmus
University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands and a member of the International Chamber of Commerce
Marketing Committee. Specific focus areas include corporate social responsibility, communications, public
affairs, integrated quality management and EU food law.
Till End 2007 Mr. Schmid was Vice President Product Safety and Consumer Affairs of Royal Ahold.
He has held a variety of positions with Royal Ahold since 1986, including corporate attorney, company
secretary and project manager in the wines and spirits and fish and meat sectors. Previously, he was with
General Mills/Smith Food, managing European affairs, public relations, quality assurance and sales and
marketing. He was also the corporate attorney for international paper trading company VRG and worked
on a human resources integration project for the Netherlands.
Mr. Schmid was the first Chairman of the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), from 2000 to 2004.
He is also Chairman of the EuroCommerce Food Policy and Consumers Committee and a European Food
Retail observer in the Codex Alimentarius Commission, created in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation (WHO) to develop food
standards and guidelines. Additionally, he is a member of the EU Round Table on Obesity, a board
member of the International Agri-Management Association a Committee.

39

Kristjan THORARINSSON, Ph. D.
Population Ecologist, Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners
Kristjan Thorarinsson is employed as population ecologist by the Federation of Icelandic Fishing
Vessel Owners since 1992. In this position, he provides scientific advice to the Federation and has served
as member of several fisheries management committees that report to the Icelandic Minister of Fisheries.
He is also since 1998 Vice-chair of the Fisheries Association of Iceland. He served as member of the
Icelandic Science and Technology Policy Council for the period 2003-2006.
In 2000, Dr Thorarinsson served as Chair of the Nordic Technical Working Group on Fisheries
Ecolabelling Criteria. He also served as Chair of two FAO expert consultations on fisheries ecolabelling,
in 2003 and 2008.

Yngve TORGERSEN
Deputy Director General, Royal Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs
Yngve Torgersen graduated from the University of Oslo with a degree in microbiology in 1989. He
worked for 6 years at the National Veterinary Institute, Oslo, as a research scientist in the field of aquatic
animal diseases and general hygiene. From 1995 to 2002 he held different positions in the Royal
Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Veterinary Services, including Head of the Ministry‟s
Animal Health Unit.
Between 2002 and 2006 Mr. Torgersen worked in the Animal Health Unit of the European
Commission in Brussels (DG SANCO). There he was “Chef de file” for aquatic animal health, and
responsible for developing the new EU legislation on aquatic animal health. In 2006 he was appointed
Deputy Director General in the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, where he
currently is responsible for the environmental sustainability of the Norwegian aquaculture industry. Mr
Torgersen has published more than 40 scientific papers and reports, and has been giving lectures and
presentations in the field of general hygiene, aquatic animal health, and regulatory issues in aquaculture.

40

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

OECD MEMBER COUNTRY REPRESENTATIVES

Australia

Mr. Simon SMALLEY
Minister-Counsellor (Agriculture)
Permanent Delegation

Belgium

Mrs. Hilde VANHAECKE
Engineer, Agriculture and Fisheries
Integrated Marine Informations System (IMIS)

Faroe Islands

Mr. Jon ELIASEN
Head of Mission to the European Union

France

M. David PICAULT
Project Manager, Direction des pêches Maritimes et de l'aquaculture
Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche
Bureau de l'économie des pêches

Germany

Ms. Christin DECKER
Fisheries Expert, EU and national fisheries legislation
Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and consumer Protection

Greece

Mr. Panayiotis TSACHAGEAS
Fisheries Officer
Ministry of Rural Development and Food

Korea

Dr. Sang-Go LEE
Professor, Division of Marine Industry Policy
College of Fisheries Sciences

Mexico

Mr. Luis MARTINEZ
Agricultural Attaché
Ministry of Agriculture, Europe Office

41

Netherlands

Mr. Albert J. VERMUË
Director, Department of Fisheries
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV)
Mr. Leon LOMANS
Policy Officer
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV)
Ms. Patricia DE VRIES-VAN LOON
Administrator, Department of Fisheries
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
Mr. Leo HAGEDOORN
Project Leader
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
Ms. Patricia VAN BENTUM
Agricultural Counsellor
Permanent Delegation
Mr. Hans NIEUWENHUIS
Marine Policy Coördinator
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality

New Zealand

Ms. Jane WILLING
Manager International and Biosecurity
Ministry of Fisheries

Norway

Ms. Elisabeth WILMANN
Deputy Director General
Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs
Ms. Anne MAGNUSSON
Senior Adviser
Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs
Ms. Elisabeth UDGAARD
Adviser
Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs

42

Sweden

Ms. Ylva MATTSON
Economist
Swedish Board of Fisheries

United States

Mr. Gregory SCHNEIDER
Senior International Trade Specialist
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Commerce

OECD OBSERVER COUNTRIES
AND ORGANISATIONS

Chinese Taipei

Mr. Ching-Ta CHUANG
Professor
National Taiwan Ocean University
Mr. Wei-Yang LIU
Secretary
Overseas Fisheries Development Council

Russian Federation

Ms. Ludmilla MUHINA
Deputy Chief of Department, Science and Education
Federal Agency for Fisheries

UN
Environment Ms. Anja VON MOLTKE
United Nations Environment Programme
Programme (UNEP)
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics
UN Food and Agricultural Mr. William EMERSON
Senior Officer
Organization (FAO)
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
Mr. Rolf WILLMANN
Senior Fishery Planning Officer
World Trade Organization Mrs. Vesile KULAÇOGLU
Director, Trade & Environment Division
(WTO)
Ms. Vivien LIU
Counsellor, Trade and Environment Division

43

OECD
Mr. Carl-Christian SCHMIDT
Trade and Agriculture Directorate
Head of Division, Fisheries Policies Division
Mr. Dale ANDREW
Trade and Agriculture Directorate
Head of Division, Trade, Policy Linkages and Services
Mr. Anthony COX
Trade and Agriculture Directorate
Senior Fisheries Policy Analyst, Fisheries Policies Division
Mr. SungBum KIM
Trade and Agriculture Department
Senior Fisheries Policy Analyst, Fisheries Policies Division
Ms. Nicole FRANZ
Trade and Agriculture Department
Fisheries Policy Analyst,Fisheries Policies Division
Mrs. Saba KHWAJA
Trade and Agriculture Department
Fisheries Policy Analyst, Fisheries Policies Division
Ms. Sally WASHINGTON
Consultant for OECD
Rome, Italy
Mrs. Emily ANDREWS-CHOUICHA
Trade and Agriculture Department
Assistant, Fisheries Policies Division

44

OTHER ORGANISATIONS
A. Espersen

Mr. Alex Elmerdahl OLSEN
Group Project Manager, Sustainable Production
Roenne. Denmark

Alaska Seafood Marketing Mr. Randy RICE
Seafood Technical Director
Institute (ASMI)
Seattle, Washington, United States
Ms. Kara HOLLATZ
International Program Manager
Juneau, Alaska, United States
AM Haram AS

Ms. Ann-Mari HARAM
Consultant
Steinsland, Norway

ANOVA Food BV

Mr. Jos EXTERS
Technical Manager
The Netherlands

Bitland Enterprise p/f

Mr. Olavur GREGERSEN
General Manager
Torshavn, Faroe Island

Commission for the South Mr. Alfonso A. JALIL
Economic Director
Pacific (CPPS)
Guayaquil, Ecuador
CNV Bedryvenbond

Mr. Nico BOGAARD
Manager
Hoofddorp, Netherlands

Danish Aquaculture
Organisation

Mr. Jesper HELDBO
Secretary General
Silkeborg, Denmark
Mr. Brian THOMSEN
CEO
Silkeborg, Denmark

DEG - Deutsche
Investituions und
Entwicklungsgesellschaft
mbH

Mr. Jens HOENERHOFF
Environmental Specialist
Cologne, Germany

Dutch Association of
Artisanal Inland Fishers

Ms. Cornelie QUIST
Fishery Management Adviser
Rijswijk (ZH), Netherlands
45

Dutch Association of
Artisanal Inland Fishers
(cont.)

Mr. Arjan HEINEN
Fishery Management Adviser
AB Rijswijk (ZH), Netherlands

Dutch Fish Product Board

Mr. Jan ODINK
President
AB Rijswijk, Netherlands
Mr. Maarten MENS
Manager, Trade and Quality
AB Rijswijk, Netherlands
Ms. Marloes KRAAN
Policy Officer, Sustainable Fisheries
AB Rijswijk, Netherlands

Dutch Food Retail
Association (CBL)

Mr. Marlijn SOMHORST
Policy Officer, Sustainability
Email: marlijn.somhorst@cbl.nl

Dutch Sustainable Trade

Mr. Jan GILHUIS
Policy Adviser
The Netherlands

EPPA SA

Ms. Anna HOLL
Adviser
Brussels, Belgium

European Bureau For
Conservation &
Development (EBCD)

Mr. Konstantinos KALAMANTIS
Fisheries Policy Officer
Brussels, Belgium
Ms. Despina SYMONS
Director
Brussels, Belgium

European Fish Processors Mr. Gus PASTOOR
President
and Traders Association
Brussels, Belgium
Fairtrade Foundation

Mr. Kenneth BOYCE
Product Development Manager
London, United Kingdom

46

Fishes Wholesale BV

Ms. Reanne CREYGHTON
Manager CSR & Communications
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Mr. Bart VAN OLPHEN
Managing Director
Amsterdam, Netherlands

FishWise

Dr. Sian MORGAN
Director of Science
Santa Cruz, California, United States

FNLI

Mr. Paul ALFING
Project manager, sustainability
Rijswijk, Netherlands

Food Certification
International Ltd

Mr. Martin GILL
Managing Director
Inverness, Scotland, United Kingdom

GTZ

Mr. Kai WIEGLER
Project Member
Eschborn, Germany
Mr. Marc NOLTING
Project Member
Eschborn, Germany

(ICSF) International
Collective in Support of
Fisheries

Mr. Brian O'RIORDAN
Secretary, ICSF Belgium Office
Rixensart, Belgium

IFQC -- Seafood Trust

Mr. Peter MARSHALL
CEO
Dundalk, Louthm, Ireland

Irish Sea Fisheries Board

Dr. Conor NOLAN
Executive, Resource Development and Environment
Dublin, Ireland

IUCN National Committee Mr. Mathew PARR
Project Officer
of the Netherlands
Amsterdam, Netherlands
KRAV

Mr. Lars NELLMER
Managing Director
Uppsala, Sweden

47

LEI -- Wageningen
University

Ms. Birgit DE VOS
PhD student, Sustainable Fisheries Governance
Wageningen,Netherlands

Leuven Centre for Global Mr. Axel MARX
Fisheries Expert
Governance Studies
Leuven, Belgium
Marine Stewardship Council

Ms. Oluyemisi OLORUNTUYI
Programme Manager
London, United Kingdom
Mr. Kees LANKESTER
Trustee
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Dr. Nathalie STEINS
Commercial Manager
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Mr. Camiel DERICHS
Manager,
The Hague, Netherlands

METRO Group Buying
International

Mr. Jan KRANGHAND
Senior Department Manager, International Infrastructure
Düsseldorf, Germany

MRAG Ltd.

Mrs. Charlotte TINDALL
Fisheries Expert in Social and Economic Resources
London. United Kingdom
Ms. Suzannah WALMSLEY
Fisheries Consultant
London, United Kingdom

New England Aquarium

Mr. Michael TLUSTY
Director of Research
Boston, Massachusetts, United States

NOFIMA

Dr. Kjell TOFTEN
Scientist
Tromso. Norway

48

North Sea Foundation

Mr. Alex OUWEHAND
CEO
Utrecht, Netherlands
Ms. Christine ABSIL
Fisheries Expert
Utrecht, Netherlands

Norwegian Seafood Export
Council

Mr. Abel RIGMOR
Director -- Enfironmental Issues
Tromso, Norway
Mr. Tove SLEIPNES
Country Manager
Tromso, Norway

Pelagic Freezer Trawler
Association

Mr. Gerard VAN BALSFOORT
Director
Rijswijk, Netherlands

PRAC/PRAC

Ms. Aukje COERS
Executive Secretary
Rijswijk, Netherlands

QA-Sense BV

Mr. Erwin ROETERT STEENBRUGGEN
International Consultant
Weesp, Netherlands

Royal Ahold

Mr. Aldin HILBRANDS
Senior manager, Product Integrity
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Mr. Ruben HURKENS
Quality Manager
Netherlands

Sea Fish Industry Authority

Mr. Phil MACMULLEN
Head of Environmental Responsibility
Hull, United Kingdom

Seafood Services Australia

Mr. Ted LOVEDAY
Managing Director
Ascot, Australia

Southeast Seafood

Ms. Sylvette PEPLOWSKI
Seafood & Fisheries Development Officer
United Kingdom

49

Stichting Vissenbescherming

Mr. Paul DENEKAMP
Manager
Amsterdam, Netherlands

Sustainable Fisheries
Foundation

Ms. Katrina NAKAMURA
Consultant
United States

TracePlace

Mr. Dali STEINBJORN
General Manager
Faroe Islands

Tromso University

Ms. Melania BORIT
Masters student
Tromso, Norway

University of Rhode Island

Professor James L. ANDERSON
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island, United States

Vof Zeevis UK 19

Mrs. Yvonne BAKKER-ROMKES
Quality Manager
Urk, Netherlands

Wageningen University

Ms. Ana Carolina LEMARIE YEPES
Assistant Teacher
Wageningen, Netherlands
Mr. Johan VERRETH
Professor, Aquaculture & Fisheries
Wageningen, Netherlands

West Africa Trade Hub -Dakar

M. Makhtar THIAM
Director / Seafood expert
Dakar, Senegal

WWF International

Mr. Miguel JORGE
Director, Marine Programme
Gland, Switzerland

WWF The Netherlands

Ms. Karin BILO
Intern
Zeist, Netherlands

WWF United States

Mr. Jose VILLALON
Director, Aquaculture
Mr. Carson ROPER
Aquaculture Expert

50

ROUND TABLE ON
ECO-LABELLING AND
CERTIFICATION
IN THE FISHERIES SECTOR

22-23 APRIL 2009
THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

www.minlnv.nl
www.oecd.org/fisheries
www.fao.org/fishery

PROCEEDINGS

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC
CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT