The researchers conclude that labelling schemes can be confusing as they are too simplistic, and that the high cost of certification may discriminate against developing economies.
The report, conducted by independent research firm MRAG Ltd and moderated by Professor James Young of the University of Stirling, argues that consumers must have access to better information and explains how the current schemes have the capacity to add to consumer confusion where there is inconsistency.
The review notes that certification schemes and recommendation lists have had substantial success in increasing awareness of the issues associated with sustainable fishing and aquaculture within a limited number of mainly developed country markets. However the review also notes that fish products from developing economies, upon which there is considerable reliance, can easily be denied access to markets if they cannot afford to produce the data required by certification schemes.
The review considered eco-labelling by organisations like the Marine Stewardship Council=652; and Friends of the Sea=652;. It also examined schemes that advise consumers on fish to eat and avoid from organisations such as Greenpeace, the Marine Conservation Society and the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
The report benchmarks ‘best practice’ for advice of this kind largely upon the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) which published guidelines on the eco-labelling of fisheries products some years ago.
The report proposes core quality standards including transparency, relevance, accuracy, and peer review which would improve the potential for inconsistent and sometimes conflicting advice which emanates from some advisory lists which are often dated and too general to be of real value.
“Working from different data sets has led to results which are inconsistent between schemes and have thus created confusion for consumers”, said James Young, Professor of Applied Marketing at the University of Stirling. “What’s more, certain schemes do not openly declare their views about certain types of fishing, so that some species will be excluded from a ‘sustainability’ list simply because of the way it’s caught.
“Another major area of concern is that any one species may be caught in very many different fisheries but the status of stocks can vary widely between these fisheries. Cod and tuna are clear examples where simple ‘yes/no’ recommendations do not convey accurate information and are of little use.”
The new research emphasises that the high cost of some certification schemes makes it difficult for fisheries in emerging markets to attain certification, and it calls for more to be done to help poorer countries and communities to achieve recognised standards in sustainability.
Professor Young continued “Whilst there’s evidence of companies and some environmental funding bodies helping fisheries with the costs of the certification process, the existing schemes can still create barriers for some fisheries in emerging economies. As sustainability information becomes more important to consumers in the developed world, this risks putting developing economies at a trading disadvantage. There’s plenty of scope for this whole area to be rationalised, and for better information to be available to consumers, so that they can really understand what they’re buying.”
