Human Rights at Sea (HRAS) has published its first independent review of voluntary international certifications, standards and ratings across the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, following a three-year review that remains an ongoing project.
The Does it Do what it Says on the Tin? report is framed as an Ecosystem 1.0 review, and it seeks to catalyse the public discussion around whether or not the identified entities are integrating human and labour rights protections within their own certification, standard or rating.
‘Human rights abuses in seafood supply chains are no longer out of sight, nor out of mind. It is, therefore, time to come together, act as a collective and address the current gaps in fishery and aquaculture certifications, standards and rating programs for the betterment of the millions of workers working in seafood supply chains,’ said HRAS CEO David Hammond, commenting that the decision has been taken for HRAS to share its findings publicly, and that the intention is to continue this work with twice-yearly updates.
According to the report’s findings, the Ecosystem 1.0 review shows compelling evidence that, collectively, there is not enough being done to incorporate human rights considerations into certifications, standards and ratings in fishery and aquaculture supply chains.
The initial findings are based on desk-level investigations of what those entities are currently stating in public from across their platforms, media and social media.
The project is part of wider work the NGO has been undertaking in reviewing the entire maritime supply chain. This report has focused on assessing schemes against 16 subjective key position indicators (KPIs).
HRAS is being supported by the US-based NGO, Freedom United and external consultancy MARFISHECO.
A total of 23 active fishery certification, standards and ratings programmes identified, and twelve (52%) of these failed to satisfy a single HRAS KPI, and scored zero.
Eleven of the 23 (48%) fisheries certification, standards and rating programmes did not mention human rights, social wellbeing or welfare at all.
None of the certifications, standards and rating programmes scored the maximum 16 points when benchmarked against the HRAS KPIs. The next highest score compared to the HRAS KPIs was the Sustainable Supply Chain Initiative’s At Sea Operations Scope from the Consumer Goods Forum.
Of 17 active aquaculture certification, standards and rating programmes identified, seven (41%) did not satisfy a single KPI, therefore, scored zero. Seven of the 17 (41%) aquaculture certifications, standards and rating programmes did not mention human rights, social wellbeing, or welfare.
None of the certifications, standards and rating programmes scored the maximum 16 points when benchmarked against the HRAS KPIs. The next highest score compared to the HRAS KPIs was the Sustainable Supply Chain Initiative’s At Sea Operations Scope from the Consumer Goods Forum.
The full report can be downloaded here.
