Ecolabelling in the Fisheries Sector†

in Ocean Yearbook Online
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.

Help

 

Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?

Connect

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

References
  • t EDITORS' NoTE.-This article was the runner-up in the 2001 Ocean Yearbook Student Paper Competition. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Conference on Communication and the Environment at the University of Cincin- nati in July 2001. The author would like to thank Ronald LeBlanc, Rosemonde LeBlanc and Michelle Poirier for all their encouragement and support, as well as their generous efforts in reviewing this text. The author would also like to thank Professor J. Stepan Wood for his comments on an earlier draft and staff at the Ocean Yearbook for their assistance. Any shortcomings or errors in this article are attribut- able solely to the author. 1. (March 2001). MSC Certification Methodology (Issue 3). www.msc.org. 2. Other fisheries-related labelling programs are dolphin-friendly and organic seafood labels. The Marine Aquarium Council has suggested the creation of a label to ensure that ornamental fish taken from coral reefs are adequately protected. See C. Deere, Eco-labelling and Sustainable Fisheries (IUCN: Washington, D.C. and FAO: Rome, 1999), pp. 10-12. 3. World Wildlife Federation, Press Release, "WWF welcomes fisheries eco- label," 3 March 2000. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http:// / www.panda.org/ news/ press/ news.cfm?id=1872.

  • 4. (October 2001). Fisheries news. Fish 4 Thought-TheMSC Quarterly Newsletter (Issue 1 ) . Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. 5. MSC, News Release, "South West Mackerel Handliners Get MSC Sustainabil- ity Seal of Approval," 4 September 2001. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org 6. Information was accessed 9 September 2002 at the Global Aquaculture Alli- ance Web site on the World Wide Web: http://www.gaalliance.org 7. See the Technical Working Group on Fisheries Ecolabelling Criteria. Ac- cessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.norden.org/fisk/ sk/criteria.asp.

  • 8. A. E. Appleton, Environmental Labelling Programmes: International Trade Law Implications (London: Kluwer Law International, 1997), p. 2. For information on the development of the concepts of ecolabels and environmental labelling generally, see pp. 1-11. 9. Ibid., p. 4, referring to Environmental Labelling-Guiding Principles, Practices and Criteria for Multiply Criteria-Based Practitioner Programmes-Guide for Certification Procedures, 3.1, Working Draft-ISO/WD 14024.2, ISO Document ISO/TC 207/SC 3/WGI N 43, (Sept. 1995).

  • 10. "Single-issue" and "multi-criteria" are terms used by E. Staffin, "Trade barrier or boom? A critical evaluation of environmental labeling and its role in the greening of world trade," Colombia journal of Environmental Law 21 (1996): 205-86 at 215-19. 11. Ibid., pp. 232-33. 12. Ibid., pp. 219-20. 13. Accessed 9 September 2002 at the EnerGuide website on the World Wide Web: http://energuide.nrcan.gc.ca.

  • 14. S. Dawson and N. Gunningham, "The more dolphins there are the less I trust what they're saying: can green labelling work?" Adelaide Law Review 18 (1996): 1-33, 2-3. 15. R. Wynne, "The emperor's new eco-logos? A critical review of the Scientific Certification Systems Environmental Report Card and the Green Seal Certification Mark programs," Virginia Environmental Law 14 (1994): 51-149 at 60-62. 16. Ibid., p. 60. 17. Ibid., pp. 60-63.

  • 18. For more information on the Forest Stewardship Council initiation, visit the FSC Web site on the World Wide Web: http://www.fscus.org. (Accessed 9 Sep- tember 2002). 19. Appleton (n. 8 above), p. 14. 20. Ibid., pp. 11-12. 21. Ibid., p. 12. 22. A. Okubo, "Environmental labeling programs and the GATT/WTO re- gime," Georgetown International Environneental Law Review 11 (1999): 599-646 at 602. 23. Appleton (n. 8 above), p. 15.

  • 24. Okubo (n. 22 above), p. 601. 25. Appleton (n. 8 above), p. 16. 26. K. Forstbauer and J. Parker, "The role of ecolabeling in sustainable forest management," Journal of Environmental Law Review 17(8) (1994): 165-90 at 170. Similar statistics reported in the UK and Australia: see Dawson and Gunningham (n. 14 above), pp. 1-2. , 27. C. Wessels, H. Donath and R. Johnston, "U.S. Consumer Preferences for Ecolabeled Seafood: Results of a Consumer Survey," (Kingston, Rhode Island: Uni- versity of Rhode Island, Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Eco- nomics, September 1999). Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.riaes.org, at p. 53 (under "Publications"). 28. Generally, see Wynne (n. 15 above), pp. 95-102.

  • 29. G. Richards, "Environmental labeling of consumer products: The need for international harmonization of standards governing third-party certification pro- grams," Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 7 (1994): 235-76 at 247- 48. 30. Deere (n. 2 above), p. 7. 31. Dawson and Gunningham (n. 14 above), p. 2. 32. Wynne (n. 15 above), p. 54. 33. Appleton (n. 8 above), p. 18.

  • 34. Wynne (n. 15 above), p. 54. 35. Ibid., p. 64. 36. K. Kloven, "Eco-labeling of sustainably harvested wood under the Forest Stewardship Council: Seeing the forest for the trees," Colorado Journal of International Enaironmental Law and Policy (1998): 48-55 at 53. 37. ENN. (15 March 1999). Activists blast Home Depot despite move to go green. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.cnn.com/ NATURE/9903/15/home.depot.enn/. Home Depot carries products from an- cient temperate rainforests of British Columbia, old growth lauan and ramin from

  • Southeast Asia, and bigleaf mahogany from the Amazon. See: Rainforest Action Net- work, Press Release, "Home Depot Announces Commitment to Stop selling Old Growth Wood" (26 August 1999). Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.ran.org/news/newsitem.php?id=74. 38. Wynne (n. 15 above), p. 131. 39. Deere (n. 2 above), p. 9. 40. See generally Richards (n. 29 above), p. 253.

  • 41. Ibid.

  • 42. The Marine Stewardship Council's Web site is located on the World Wide Web at http://www.msc.org. 43. About MSC. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http:// / www.msc.org. 44. Principles and criteria for sustainable fishing. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. 45. (August 2000). MSC Ge�idelines for Certifiers 3. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. 46. (March 2001). Accreditation manual (requirements for certifiers). MSC Accreditation ManualPart 3 (Issue 4). Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org.

  • 47. Information accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web at the MSC Web site: http://www.msc.org. 48. Organizations accredited to carry out only the chain of custody evaluation are as follows: Integra Food Secure Ltd. (Exeter, UK), McAlister Elliott & Partners Limited (Lymington, UK) and Surefish (Seattle, USA). Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web at the MSC Web site: http://www.msc.org. 49. MSCAccreditation Manual (n. 46 above), Part 3.2, Section 1 (1.1). 50. MSC Certification Methodology (n. 1 above), p. 6.

  • 51. Overview. MSC Accreditation Manual (n. 46 above). 52. Information on the MSC accreditation process is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.msc.org. See also: MSCAccreditation Manual (n. 46 above), Part 3.1, Section 7, p. 14. 53. MSC Accreditation Manual (n. 46 above), Part 3.1, Sections 1, 2 and 3. 54. Ibid., Part 3.1, Section 1, p. 5. 55. Ibid., Part 3.1, Sections 2 and 3. 56. Ibid., Part 3.1, Sections 4, 5, 6 and 10. 57. Ibid., Part 3.1, Section 4.

  • 58. Ibid., Part 3.1, Section 4, p. 9. 59. Ibid., Part 3.1, Section 6, p. 12. 60. Ibid., Part 3.1, Section 5, p. 10. 61. Ibid., Part 3.1, Section 10, p. 17. 62. Ibid., Part 3.1, Section 4, p. 9. 63. Ibid., Part 3.1, Section 12, p. 20. 64. MSC C�uidelines for Certifiers (n. 45 above), Item 3.1. 65. Ibid., Items 4.1 and 4.2. 66. MSC Accreditation Manual (n. 46 above), Part 3.1, Section 11, p. 18. 67. MSC Guidelines for Certifiers (n. 45 above), Item 12. 68. MSCAccreditation Manual (n. 46 above), Part 3.1, Sections 8 and 9, pp. 15, 16. 69. Ibid., Part 3.1, Section 18, p. 26. 70. Ibid., Part 3.1, Section 7, p. 14.

  • 71. Ibid., Part 3.1, Section 8, p. 15. 72. MSC Certification Methodology (n. 1 above), Item 16.4.3, p. 30. 73. MSC Guidelines for Certifiers (n. 45 above), Item 12. 74. "About MSC," accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org-Vision, Mission and Values. 75. More information is available on Chain of Custody certification as accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. Processors with chain of custody exist for the Western Australia Rock Lobster, Thames-Blackwater Herring, Alaska Salmon, New Zealand Hoki, South West Handline Mackerel fisher- ies and Burry Inlet cockle fisheries.

  • 76. "Fisheries Certification," accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. 77. Preamble. MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. (n. 44 above). 78. Ibid.

  • 79. R. Hilborn, "Uncertainty, Risk and the Precautionary Principle," in Global Trends: Fisheries Management, ed. E. Pikitch et al. (Seattle: American Fisheries Society, 1997), pp. 100-106 at p. 100. (Proceedings of the American Fisheries Society Sympo- sium 20).

  • 80. MSC Principles and Criteria (n. 44 above). . 81. S. M. Garcia and R. J. R. Grainger, "Fisheries Management and Sustainabil- ity: A new perspective of an old problem?," in Developing and Sustaining World Fisheries Resources, ed. D. A. Hancock et al. (Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing, 1997), pp. 631-54 at p. 648. (The State of Science and Management, Proceedings of the 2nd World Fisheries Congress) 82. Summary of First MSC Standards Council Meeting 24th and 25th June 2000. (On file with the author).

  • 83. MSC Principles and Criteria (n. 44 above). 84. Ibid., Principle 3.

  • 85. MSC Certification Methodology (n. 1 above) Section 2, p. 12. 86. Ibid., Section 3, p. 13.

  • 87. Ibid., Section 4, p. 13-14. 88. Ibid., Section 5, p. 14-16. 89. Ibid., Sections 6, 6.4, 6.5, p. 17-19. 90. Ibid., Section 6.3, p. 17. 91. Ibid., Section 7.1, p. 19.

  • 92. Ibid., Section 10.1, p. 21-22. 93. Ibid., Section 10.4, p. 22. 94. Ibid., Section 10.3, p. 22. 95. Ibid., Section 11, p. 23.

  • 96. Ibid., Section 11.2, p. 23. 97. Ibid., Section 11.4, p. 23. 98. Ibid., Section 12.5, p. 24. 99. Ibid., Section 13, p. 24. 100. Ibid., Section 15, p. 28.

  • 101. World Wildlife Fund, Press Release, "First seafood eco-label receives warm welcome at Europe's largest trade show" (Brussels, Belgium) 11 May 2001. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.panda.org/ endangeredseas/seafood.cfm. 102. Commercial fisheries of western Australia. Department of Fisheries Web site, accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.wa.gov.au/ westfish / comm / broc / Iobster/ / index.html. 103. Marine Stewardship Council. (April, 2000). Western Australia Rock Lob- ster Fishery public summary. Item 1.4.1 and 1.4.2, pp. 9-10. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org.

  • 104. Performance criteria and scoring guideposts against the Marine Steward- ship Council principles and criteria- Western Australia Rock LobsterFishery Issue 1, p. 9. 105. MSC rock lobster report (n. 103 above), p. 26.

  • 106. MSC Certification Methodology (n. 1 above), Section 15, pp. 28-29. 107. David Bell, MSC Fisheries Research Assistant, Personal Communication, 18 October 2000. Communication via e-mail concerning the Alaska Salmon Public Report: by 18 October 2000; it had not been made available to the MSC although it had received certification on 5 September 2000. This potential scenario appears to have been corrected by section 16.1 of the MSC Certification Methodology. Ibid. 108. MSC rock lobster report (n. 103 above), p. 26. 109. Ibid., p. 22. 110. MSC Accreditation Manual (n. 46 above), Part 3.3, Section 3, pp. 54-55. See also MSC Certification Methodology (n. 1 above), Section 15, pp. 28-29.

  • 111. Fisheries certification public summary. Marine Stewardship Co2tnril and SGS AgorControl (March 2000), 1. (Thames-Blackwater Herring Driftnet). Accessed 9 Sep- tember 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. 112. Marine Stewardship Council (undated). MSC Certification of the Thames Herring Driftnet Fishery: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Accessed 9 Septem- ber 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. 113. MSC, News Release, "First Proof of MSC Label Benefits to UK Fishing Industry-Thames Herring Prices up by 50%," 2 November 2000, Accessed 9 Sep- tember 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. 114. MSC and SGS AgorControl Herring Report (n. 111 above), p. 2. 115. Ibid., p. 7. 116. Ibid., p. 19. 117. MSC Herring FAQs (n. 112 above). 118. MSC and SGS AgorControl Herring Report (n. 111 above), pp. 7 and 17. 119. MSC Herring FAQs (n. 112 above).

  • 120. MSC and SGS AgorControl Herring Report (n. 111 above), p. 19. 121. This plan is not available on the MSC Web site, nor was it available on KESFC related Web sites. 122. MSC and SGS AgorControl Herring Report (n. 111 above), pp. 19-20. 123. Ibid.

  • 124. MSC Accreditation Manual (n. 46 above), Part 3.1, Section 9. 125. The public report states that the TAC is based "largely" on the scientific advice of CEFAS, leading the reader to assume that the TAC is perhaps not solely based on scientific advice. See MSC and SGS AgorControl Herring Report (n. 111 I above), p. 5. 126. Ibid., p. 19. 127. Ibid., pp. 17-18. 128. Ibid., pp. 6 and 19. 129. Ibid., p. 3.

  • 130. Ibid., p. 17. 131. Ibid., p. 19. 132. Ibid., pp. 8-22. 133. Ibid., p. 11. 134. Ibid., p. 15. 135. Ibid., p. 15. 136. Ibid., p. 11. 137. Ibid., p. 15. 138. Ibid., p. 15. 139. MSC Herring FAQs (n. 112 above).

  • 140. ENN Press Release, "Alaska salmon earn landmark seal of approval," 7 September 2000. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http:// 1 www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/2000/09/09072000/asalmon_31195.asp.

  • 141. Ibid. 142. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska Salmon Management: A story of success. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http:// / www.state.ak.us/adfg/ under "Publications." 143. The five species are Chinook, Sockeye, Coho, Chum, and Pink Salmon. 144. Marine Stewardship Council and Scientific Certification Systems Inc. (September 2000). The summary report on certification of commercial salmon fisheries in Alaska, p. 5. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org.

  • 145. Ibid., pp. 18-19 and 21-27. 146. Ibid., pp. 30-32.

  • 147. Ibid., p. 8. 148. (30 July 1998). Scientists: Alaska's salmon bust may be Northwest bounty. Seattle Times Company. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http:// / seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/html98/fish_073098.html. Available in ar- chives. 149. Governor Tony Knowles (19 July 2000). Declaration of Disaster Emergency. Office of the Governor, State of Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: 24 August 2001. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/press/O1- 08-24 disaster.html. 150. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www. ak-prepared.com/ykn/images/fisheriesmapweb jpg. 151. Marine Stewardship Council (undated). Alaskan Salmon Certification (Frequently Asked Questions). Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org.

  • 152. SGS Products and Process Certification. Marine Stewardship Council. MSC Fisheries Certification. New Zealand Hoki: March 2001, p. 6. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. 153. Ibid., p. 7. 154. Ibid., p. 8. 155. Ibid., p. 59. 156. Ibid., p. 37. 157. Ibid., p. 16. 158. Ibid., p. 64. 159. Ibid., p. 22.

  • 160. Ibid., p. 39. 161. Ibid., p. 41. 162. Ibid., pp. 41-42. 163. Ibid., pp. 44-45 164. Ibid., p. 44. 165. Ibid., p. 45. 166. Ibid., p. 46. 167. Ibid., p. 12. 168. Ibid. 169. B. Burton, "Stamp of approval for NZ fishery angers seal protectionists," Environment News Service (20 March 2001). Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/mar2001/2001L-03-20-02.html. 170. Ibid. 171. MSC and SGS Products and Process Certification Hoki Report (n. 152 above), p. 60.

  • 172. Ibid. 173. Burton (n. 169 above). 174. The Buller's Albatross is classified as vulnerable as it is restricted to a very small breeding area. Major threats are accidental mortality and alien invasive species. If a decline is observed, it may be upgraded to endangered status. For the Salvin's Albatross, major threats include accidental mortality, atmospheric pollution and nat- ural disasters. It is also classified as vulnerable because breeding is largely restricted to one tiny group of islands. The 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.redlist.org/. 175. Burton (n. 169 above). Weeber referred to a third species of vulnerable albatross, the "white-capped" Albatross. This species was not found in the IUCN database under that name. The scientific name of the species was not provided in the reporting, or in the Hoki Public Report (n. 152 above). The Hoki public report did, however, also refer to three un-named albatross species as being vulnerable. 176. MSC and SGS Products and Process Certification Hoki Report (n. 152 above), p. 12.

  • 177. B. May, "MSC fights back over 'greenwash claims'," Warldcatch News Net- work (20 March 2001). Article appeared on the Worldcatch News Network Web site on 20 March 2001. Accessed 10 December 2001 on the World Wide Web: http:// / www.msc.org under "Certified Fisheries." Author's note: In July 2002, the MSC pro- vided an Objections Procedure by which organizations may lodge an objection to a determination that a fishery meets or does not meet the MSC standard. 178. Numerous minor corrective actions have since been addressed. See Fish- ing Surveillance Audit Report, available on World Wide Web www.msc.org. Accessed 9 September 2002.

  • 179. A. Hough and T. J. Holt (March 2001). Marine Stewardship Council and Moody Marine Ltd. certification report for Burry Inlet Cockle Fishery. p. 5. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. 180. Marine Stewardship Council (undated). Burry Inlet Cockles FAQ. Ac- cessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. 181. Ibid. 182. MSC and Moody Marine Ltd., Cockle Report (n. 179 above), pp. 17-44. 183. Ibid., p. 8. 184. Ibid. 185. Ibid., pp. 31-32. 186. Ibid., p. 26. 187. Ibid., p. 28. 188. Ibid., p. 27. 189. Ibid., p. 29.

  • 190. Ibid., p. 43. 191. Ibid., p. 43. 192. Scoring Criteria 2D.1 for the Burry Inlet Cockle Fishery, Ibid., p. 30. 193. Ibid., p. 47.

  • 194. MSC Signatory Programme. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.msc.org. 195. FAO. Focus: fisheries and food security. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/fisheries/trade.htm.

  • 196. United States Restriction on Imports of Tuna, GATT DOC. DS21 / R (3 3 Sept. 1991). (This was not adopted.) 197. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), 15 April 1994. Mar- akesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, I.L.M. 33 (1994), 81. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http:// www.wto.org. 198. Okubo (n. 22 above), p. 630. 199. Ibid., pp. 631-633. 200. TBT Agreement (n. 197 above), Articles 3 and 4 generally.

  • 201. World Trade Organization. Report (1996) of the Committee on Trade and Envi- ronment, at para. 70, p. 18. Accessed 9 September 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.wto.org. 202. Ibid., para. 73. 203. Ibid., para. 74-81. 204. The FAO has discussed the feasibility of developing guidelines for ecola- belling in the fisheries sector. The FAO stated that any agreement would have to establish clear accountability for the promoters of the scheme. The Nordic Council of Ministers took part in this consultation. See FAO. Report of the Technical Consulta-

  • tionontheFeasibilityofDevelopingNon-DiscriminatoryTechnicalGuidelinesforEco-La-bellingof Products fromMarineCaptureFisheries. The Fisheries Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy: 21-23 October 1998. Accessed 9 Sep- tember 2002 on the World Wide Web: http://www.fao.org/fi/faocons/ecolab/ r594e.asp.

  • 205. May (n. 177 above). 206. Marine Stewardship Council (April 2000). Performance Criteria and Scoring Guideposts Against the Marine Stewardship Council Principles f� Criteria-Alaskan Salmon Fishery Issue. On file with author.

Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 62 59 1
Full Text Views 21 21 0
PDF Downloads 2 2 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0