Presentation at the Resources for the Future seminar on Implications of Seafood Supply Chain Certification on Social Outcomes. For a video of the session go to: http://www.rff.org/events/event/2016-05/implications-seafood-supply-chain-certification-social-outcomes

1. Towards an inclusive model for developing
world seafood sustainability
Simon R. Bush
Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University

2. Limits to certification
 Limited (!) market demand
 Narrow take on sustainability
 High capital requirements for
upgrading and compliance
 Exclusion of poor performers in
need of large improvements
 Dependence on public and
private intermediaries for
‘improvement’

3. CAPTURE FISHERIES
Average
coverage of SSI
social indices
across
initiatives
AQUACULTURE
Seafood
Standards
Review 2016
Average
coverage 35%
Average
coverage 58%
Report launch
May 11th 2016

4. Demonstrating improvement
Cambridge et al. 2011; Bush and Oosterveer 2015, Sustainability
Certification ‘pull’ below certification threshold?
35% in Pre-assessment
already comply with MSC
standards
65% in Pre-assessment don’t
get to full MSC assessment

5. Social constraints to compliance
Capabilities are dependent
on chain relations
 Top down informational
demand pushed down chains
 Quasi-credit control over
producers by middlemen
 Weak benefit distribution
along chain
Producer
capabilities
Retailer
Middlemen
Processor
Input chain
NGOs Gov’t.
Theory of change
compromised

6. Credibility
Accessibility Continual
improvement
‘Devils
triangle’
Certification conundrum
Developing
world
producers?
Best
performing
producers?
Untenable?
Bush et al. 2013, Marine Policy

7. Inclusive improvement models
Can we build a more credible and
inclusive improvement model for
seafood producers in developing
countries?

8. Moving to a new model
MEDIATED CAPTIVE MARKET
Individual
Producers
Partnership
model
Collective
Action

9. Inclusive, transparent, traceable
Middlemen Processor Exporter Buyer
RFMO
Licence
Register

10. Risk-based assessment
 Vessel monitoring system reduces compliance risk
 Facilitates RFMO, IUU and task-force compliance
 Information fed back to fishers!

11. Area-based assessment
+ + ?

12. Considerations
1. Can such a model replace
certification?
2. Are needs of buyers and
trade regulators met?
3. Does it improve social equity,
fairness and/or
empowerment?
4. Who stays in control of
information and assessment?

13. More information?
Bush, S.R., B. Belton, D. Hall, P. Vandergeest, F. J. Murray, S. Ponte,
P. Oosterveer, M.S. Islam, A.P.J. Mol, M. Hatanaka, F. Kruijssen,
T. T. T. Ha, D. C. Little, R. Kusumawati (2013) Certify
sustainable aquaculture? Science 341: 1067-
1068. DOI: 10.1126/science.1237314
Bush, S.R., P.H. Toonen, P. Oosterveer and A.P.J. Mol (2013) The
‘Devils Triangle’ of MSC certification: balancing credibility,
accessibility and continuous improvement. Marine Policy 37:
288–293. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.011
Bailey, M., S.R. Bush, A. Miller, M. Kochen (2016) The role of
traceability in transforming seafood governance in the Global
South. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 18: 25-
35. DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.004