RECUPERACIÓN DE LOS RECINTOS UNIVERSITARIOS

4.1

Introduction

The idea behind a fishery eco-label is that consumers can reward fisheries that are undertaken in a ‘sustainable’ manner. Potentially, eco-labelling could reduce, or even completely eliminate, the conflict between nature conservation and fishery. The latter requires that (a) the majority of the consumers can be persuaded to buy only eco-labelled fish and (b) the eco-label provides sufficient guarantees for the ecosystem. This chapter investigates whether these conditions are met or will be met in the future.

With regard to the first condition it may be remarked that at present most fish and fish products on sale for consumers are unlabelled. Kaiser & Edwards-Jones (2006) explain this among other things on a general lack of consumer concern for marine fish and sustainable fisheries. It is easy to get public support for protecting seals and dolphins, but fish are generally “unloved” in their opinion. However, it may be questioned if consumers should be and/or are the prime direct target of the eco-label. The primary target could be the supermarket chains and the trading companies, instead of the consumers, even though it is consumer concern that should persuade companies to buy labelled fish. It is certainly the case that supermarket chains and trading companies show a growing interest in eco-labelled products. The Marine Stewardship Council for instance was co-founded by the multinational Unilever. Our condition that the majority of consumers buy eco-labelled fish is also met if supermarket chains and trading companies preferentially or even exclusively buy properly labelled fish. This is not a utopia. In a communication of the commission of the European Communities that seeks to launch a debate on a Community approach towards eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products (EU 2005), we find the following statements:

The most frequently cited, and possibly most controversial, case of eco-labelling in the fisheries sector is the “dolphin-safe/dolphin-friendly” labelled tuna. This label is meant to certify that the tuna was caught in a way that protects dolphins, either based on the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme (AIDCP), a multilateral Regional Fisheries Organisation, or in line with a programme promoted by the Earth Island Institute, a US based non-governmental organisation. Although “dolphin-safe/dolphin-friendly” labelling started out as a technical regulation, it has ever since changed the market to such an extent that tuna which is not labelled as "dolphin- safe" is no longer acceptable in some countries. However, the AIDCP and the US norms are not complementary. As a matter of fact, the “dolphin-safe” label bars tuna caught in accordance with AIDCP standards from access to the US markets. This has given rise to an ongoing dispute between Mexico and the US. Attempts by the US administration to amend the US law to meet AIDCP requirements have been challenged in the US courts by some NGOs that consider the AIDCP measures not to be stringent enough.

On the one hand, the tuna example shows that eco-labelling may lead to labelled fish completely displacing unlabelled fish from the market. On the other hand, it shows the importance of our second condition that the eco-label provides sufficient guarantees for the ecosystem.

In this chapter we have made no attempts to present a comprehensive review of all extant fishery eco-labels. Instead, we have restricted ourselves to the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) for several reasons. First, it is the best known fishery eco-label that seems to “dominate

the market” of fishery eco-labels. Second, the information on the MSC label and the certified fisheries was easily accessible on the MSC internet site (www.msc.org). Third, time was limited. Our leading question in this chapter is whether the MSC label provides sufficient guarantees for protection of the ecosystem. We will examine information on MSC certified fisheries and at the end of the chapter explicitly discuss Dutch fisheries and MSC certification.

4.2

Criteria for certification

The Marine Stewardship Council was founded in 1997 by Unilever, the world’s largest buyer of seafood, and WWF, the international conservation organisation. However, it became an independent non-profit organisation in 1999. The first fisheries were certified in 2000 and in December 2006 a total of 21 fisheries were certified (Figure 8). Another 18 fisheries are currently undergoing assessment.

0 5 10 15 20 25 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 num be r of f is he ri es newly certified cumulative

Figure 8. The number of newly certified fisheries and the cumulative number of fisheries certified under MSC.

Recently, the FAO has drafted guidelines for the eco-labelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries (FAO 2005a), following extensive discussions by experts (FAO 2003c; FAO 2005b). For the purpose of this project, it is important to note that the implementation of the precautionary approach to protect the “stock under consideration” and to preserve the aquatic environment is considered a minimum substantive requirement in these guidelines. In fact, this is article 7.5 of the code of conduct for responsible fisheries that was drafted by the FAO in 1995 (FAO 1995). How many of these guidelines are actually met by the Marine Stewardship Council is not easy to tell, but the core requirements certainly seem to be met. According to the MSC internet site (www.msc.org):

The MSC programme shares key characteristics with the new FAO guidelines including: · objective, third-party fishery assessment utilising scientific evidence;

· transparent processes with built-in stakeholder consultation;

· a three-pronged standard based on the sustainability of target species, ecosystems and management practices.

At present, we have no reasons to doubt these statements. According to Kees Lankester (pers. comm.) there are only two minor items for which the MSC standard does not meet the FAO guidelines at present8_:

• The separation between accreditation and “standard-setting”. • The way in which a dispute panel is assembled and executed.

The current MSC principles and criteria for sustainable fishing can be found on the MSC internet site (www.msc.org) and we have copied them below with a grey background:

PRINCIPLE 1

A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery 9_:

Intent:

The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term.

Criteria:

1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity.

2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame.

3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.

8 _{During the completion of this report the MSC standard was adapted and now meets all FAO criteria.}

9 _{The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their}

significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations

PRINCIPLE 2:

Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

Intent:

The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

Criteria:

1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes.

2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species.

3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.

PRINCIPLE 3:

The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

Intent:

The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.