Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

Ecolabelling, SIF,CUSAT


  1. 1. Koushik M.Sc. 3rd sem SIF,CUSAT
  2. 2.  There is broad consensus in the international community that many of the world’s commercial fisheries are in distress.
  3. 3.  Eco-labelling schemes are increasingly perceived as a way simultaneously to maintain the productivity and economic value of fisheries while providing incentives for improved fisheries management and the conservation of marine biodiversity.
  4. 4.  the scientific basis of the criteria proposed for fisheries eco-labelling schemes;  the attitude of consumers toward such schemes;  and the potential impact of such schemes on international trade in fish and fishery products  In particular, there are concerns that eco- labelling schemes may cause discrimination against fish exports from developing countries and countries with economies in transition
  5. 5.  1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea  1995 UN Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Straddling Stocks Agreement)  1993 FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement).
  6. 6.  1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.  Agenda 21 of the UN Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil .  1992 Convention on Biological Diversity..  1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
  7. 7.  All eco-labelling schemes share the common assumption that purchasing behaviour of consumers is not just motivated by price and mandatory quality and health standards.  Rather, product attributes taken into account by consumers can relate to environmental and ecological objectives as well as economic and social objectives.
  8. 8.  Eco-labels are seals of approval given to products that are deemed to have fewer impacts on the environment than functionally or competitively similar products.  The rationale for basic labelling information at the point of sale is that it links fisheries products to their production process.
  9. 9.  The goal of eco-labelling initiatives is to promote sustainably managed fisheries and highlight their products to consumers.  Product claims associated with eco-labelling aim at tapping the growing public demand for environmentally preferable products.  Eco-labels generally rely on life-cycle assessment to determine the environmental impact of a product ‘from cradle to grave’.
  10. 10.  First party labelling schemes:  These are established by individual companies based on their own product standards.  The standards might be based on criteria related to specific environmental issues known to informed consumers through the media or advertising. This form of eco-labelling can also be referred to as ‘self-declaration’
  11. 11.  Second party labelling schemes:  These are established by industry associations for their members’ products. The members elaborate certification criteria, sometimes by drawing upon external expertise from academia and environmental organisations.  Verification of compliance is achieved through internal certification procedures within the industry, or employment of external certifying companies.
  12. 12.  Third party labelling schemes:  These are usually established by a private initiator independent from the producers, distributors and sellers of the labelled products. Products supplied by organisations or resources that are certified are then labelled with information to the consumers that the product was produced in an environmentally friendly’ fashion.
  13. 13.  The label (seal) is typically licensed to a producer and may appear on or accompany a product derived from a certified fishery or producer. Producers are usually expected to track the chain of custody’ of their products in order to ensure that the products derived from the certified fishery are in fact those that are so labelled.
  14. 14.  Environmental organisations and consumers generally prefer eco-labelling schemes of this type because of the heightened confidence that private commercial interests will not compromise the criteria applied to the schemes and strict compliance with them based on verifiable and impartial certification procedures.
  15. 15.  Provide information about the environmental impact of products and enable more informed purchasing behaviour by consumers and intermediaries.  Provide consumers with the opportunity to express their environmental/ecological concerns through their purchasing behaviour and the market mechanism (e.g., dedicating their buying power to ‘green catches’).
  16. 16.  Encourage retailers and consumers to buy only fishery products that come from sustainably managed resources.  Raise environmental standards in the production of the commodity.
  17. 17.  Generate price differentials between eco- labelled products and those that either do not qualify for ecolabeling, or those whose producers do not seek to obtain such labelling.  Enhance incentives for producers to supply products that meet the eco-labelling criteria in order to receive greater returns (a ‘green premium’) or gain market share for their products. .
  18. 18.  Provide competitive advantages, market access or greater market share for fisheries products derived from sustainably managed fisheries.  Generate greater support by industry and other interested parties for improved fisheries management
  19. 19.  There are already several national, international, industry-sponsored, NGO-led and consumer-supplier partnership certification and standards schemes under development in the fisheries sector.
  20. 20. In many instances, producers have sought to gain competitive advantage by drawing attention to the origin of fish through labels. Moreover, the labeling of fish by origin and species is promoted by governments in some instances as a way to enable more effective tracking and identification of fisheries products to aid fisheries management.
  21. 21.  A variety of producers in the United States have made self-declarations that their tuna is ‘dolphin safe’. The Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) of 1991established criteria for the manner in which tuna must be caught.  (On a voluntary basis, companies can then label their tuna to be ‘dolphin safe’.)
  22. 22.  Friend of the Sea (FOS) has its origins in the Earth Island Institute. Set up in 2006, its founder is also the European Director of Dolphin Safe. It covers both wild and farmed fish and its criteria also include requirements related to carbon footprint and “social accountability”.
  23. 23.  Certification is based on the sustainability of the stock, rather than whether the fishery is sustainably managed. Its certification methodology is based on existing official data in terms of stock assessment.
  24. 24.  The FoS certification Program for wildcapture fishery is generally based upon the following criteria:  target stock should not be overexploited;  no by catch of endangered species;  maximum 8% discard;  no impact on seabed;  compliance with regulations (TAC, no IUU etc);  social accountability requirements;  gradual carbon footprint reduction.
  25. 25.  For the farmed products the criteria are in general:  no impact on critical habitat (mangroves, wetlands, etc);  escape and bycatch reduction;  compliance of water quality parameters;  no GMO, growth hormones or harmful antifoulants;  gradual carbon footprint reduction.
  26. 26.  Friend of the Sea says it will not certify stocks that are “overexploited” (based on FAO definitions of levels of exploitation), fisheries using methods that affect the seabed and those that generate more than 8 per cent discards. Certification is undertaken by independent third-party certifiers.
  27. 27.  Friend of the Sea claims to be “the main sustainable seafood certification scheme in the world” covering some 10 per cent of the world’s wild capture fisheries.
  28. 28.  Sharat Industries, Nellore has it’s white leg shrimp certified as sustainable by Friend of Sea.  The company’s brood stock is imported from the Oceanic Institute in the US under the supervision of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority(CAA) and according to the regulations of the Livestock Importation Act and Central Government guidelines.  The company was the first company in India to start the cultivation of white leg shrimp.
  29. 29.  There are also efforts underway by fishing companies in some parts of the world to label fish as farmed or wild, and more recently to win marketing niche with so-called ‘organic seafood’. Organic labeling usually signifies that food has been produced without artificial inputs—especially synthetic fertilizers and pesticides—and has been grown using environmentally sound farm management techniques.
  30. 30.  When you’re shopping for organic foods in the U.S., look for the “USDA Organic” seal. Only foods that are 95 to 100 percent organic can use the USDA Organic label.  100% Organic – Foods that are completely organic or made with 100% organic ingredients may display the USDA seal.  Organic – Foods that contain at least 95% organic ingredients may display the USDA seal.
  31. 31.  Made with organic ingredients – Foods that contain at least 70% organic ingredients will not display the USDA seal but may list specific organic ingredients on the front of the package.  Contains organic ingredients – Foods that contain less than 70% organic ingredients will not display the USDA seal but may list specific organic ingredients on the information panel of the package.
  32. 32.  European Union Australian Canadian
  33. 33.  The MSC is an independent, not for profit, international body headquartered in London, UK. It was initiated by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Unilever, a large fish retailer, to promote sustainable and responsible fisheries and fishing practices worldwide. 
  34. 34.  317: Fisheries engaged in the MSC program  219: Certified fisheries  98: Fisheries in assessment  Another 40 to 50 fisheries are in confidential pre-assessment
  35. 35.  Together, fisheries already certified or in full assessment record annual catches of around 10 million metric tonnes of seafood. This represents over 10% of the annual global harvest of wild capture fisheries.  The fisheries already certified catch over 7 million metric tonnes of seafood. This is over 8% of the total wild capture harvest.  Worldwide, more than 20, 000 seafood products*, which can be traced back to the certified sustainable fisheries, bear the blue MSC eco label.
  36. 36.  The MSC runs the only certification and ecolabelling program for wild-capture fisheries consistent with:  The ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards, and  The United Nations FAO guidelines for fisheries certification.
  37. 37.  MSC STANDARD FOR SUSTAINABILITY  Fisheries can demonstrate that their practices are sustainable by getting certified to the MSC environmental standard for sustainable fishing.  Successful certification gives an assurance to buyers and consumers that their seafood comes from a well managed and sustainable source.
  38. 38.  MSC STANDARD FOR TRACEABILITY  MSC’s Chain of Custody standard for seafood traceability ensures that only seafood from a certified sustainable fishery carries the MSC eco label.  It means that consumers and seafood buyers can have confidence that the fish they are buying can be traced back to a fishery that meets the MSC environmental standard for sustainable fishing.
  39. 39.  The MSC ecolabel is the globally recognised mark for Sea Food that can be traced back through every step of the supply chain to the well managed and sustainable fishery that caught it.
  40. 40.  The MSC ecolabel reflects that, they are fishing sustainably, implementing good management practices and minimising their environmental impact. By opting to use the MSC logo, producers of fishery products are expected to give consumers the option to buy fishery products that have been derived from sustainable, well managed fisheries.
  41. 41.  M/S H.T FOODS, Kakkanad, Kochi was the first unit to be certified against MSC COC standard. Now M/s Gadre Marine, Veraval and M/s Choice Canning Company , Kochi are also certified against this standard. 
  42. 42.  MAC, a non-profit international organisation based in Hawaii (U.S.A.), brings together representatives of the aquarium industry, hobbyists, conservation organisations, government agencies and public aquariums. MAC aims at conserving coral reefs by creating standards and educating and certifying those engaged in the collection and care of ornamental marine life from reef to aquarium.
  43. 43.  It is working to establish standards for ‘best practices’ in the supply of marine aquarium organisms; an independent system to certify compliance with these standards; and consumer demand and confidence for certified organisms, practices and industry participants.
  44. 44.
  45. 45.  A few individual fishing companies have created their own ecolabels. For example,the Spanish group Pescanova, one of Europe’s largest fishing companies, which fishes globally and has interests in the processing sector, has created a logo that appears on a limited range of its packaged products. The logo states that the fish concerned has been caught in a way that “preserves the aquatic and marine ecosystem for maintaining the quality, diversity and availability of fish resources for today and future generations”. This in-house scheme claims to be based on the Code.
  46. 46.  The Japan Fisheries Association, an umbrella group for some 400 fishing companies, founded the Marine EcoLabel-Japan (MEL) in December 2007. The MEL operates as a non-profit part of that association. It could be seen as a response to a developing interest in ecolabelled fish and seafood in the Japanese market. Indeed the stated rationale behind the label was to “respond to the situation proactively and establish their own ecolabelling scheme, which is most suitable to the situation of the Japanese fisheries”. As of January 2010, only three fisheries have been certified to the fledgling label. It is likely to have significance only in the Japanese market.
  47. 47.  Recently, some public authorities, most notably the Government of France and Iceland, have set up their own ecolabels.The Government of France has chosen to create its own national ecolabel and related certification scheme. This decision was based on a feasibility study undertaken in2008 by the French authority, FranceAgriMer.
  48. 48.  RFS and GAA, headquartered in the U.S.A., have announced a joint eco-labelling scheme to recognize industry commitment and participation in responsible fisheries and aquaculture  The merger brings over 200 companies and individuals from 19 countries together in an effort to promote sustainable seafood harvest and production worldwide.
  49. 49.  Environmental labels and declarations are one of the tools of environmental management, which is the subject of the ISO 14000 series.  This series does not prescribe environmental performance levels. Rather, to claim compliance with ISO 14000 standards, firms are required to establish an environmental policy and to set targets and objectives for environmental management performance.
  50. 50.  ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES  Many governments and industry groups recognise that eco- labelling could provide needed economic incentives for better long term stewardship and availability of natural resources important for national economic welfare.  Eco-labelling schemes can provide countries one tool to help them fulfill commitments made under international agreements on important environmental imperatives such as responsible fisheries and the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.  .
  51. 51.  The fundamental rationale for eco-labelling is, after all to generate political support for improved environmental management and to raise environmental standards through consumer choice.
  52. 52.  Labelling provides one of the least-coercive market-based mechanisms to improve conservation outcomes.  Private sector interest in eco-labelling for fisheries products in both developed and developing countries is growing, especially given the business and export opportunities eco-labelling has generated in some other sectors.
  53. 53.  Moreover, as already noted, it is the potential for growth in the market share of eco-labelled products that makes eco-labelling a compelling business choice.  If fisheries management improves in response to efforts to comply with certification criteria, the potential benefits to fisheries in both industrial and developing countries could go far beyond higher revenues which ecolabelled products may generate.
  54. 54.  Eco-labelling presents an opportunity to add value to existing products, expand reach in existing markets, or maintain market share in a competitive environment.  Product differentiation could be a way for some exporters to enhance their export earnings and eco-labels could be one source of such product differentiation.
  55. 55.  There are also hopes that eco-labelling could provide new opportunities for attracting capital investment and joint ventures in developing countries  Eco-labelling is seen by some as an important element for gaining access to new premium green markets (e.g.,market access).
  56. 56.  Eco-labelling can also provide an opportunity for innovative producers to benefit from the use of more environmentally-friendly production methods.
  57. 57.  In a world in which the demand for fishery products are increasing in leaps and bounds, and the pressure on the natural resources are rising, eco-labelling appears to be a possible way to bring about a greater degree of control and sanity in the system.  --------
  58. 58. THANK YOU