SFP Fisheries Forum B Melanie Siggs f64fc976
Demystifying Standards and Eco-Labels
Melanie Siggs Sustainable Fisheries Partnership
What’s the problem? • Markets are filled with debate, conflict, and strategic maneuvering, making them more akin to politics than to mere exchange (Fligstein 2001). • In this setting, certification ―can be appropriated, used, and justified in a variety of of political and politico-economic fields (Ponte 2008:168). • Certification initiatives provide a possible platform for two types of ―challengers. First, there are firms that seek to unseat the dominant position of (usually large, well-established) incumbent firms (Fligstein 2001). • Challenger firms may seek to leverage certification to increase their visibility or market share. Second, there are challengers activated by social movements (King and Soule 2007). • The existence of operations certified as sustainable, fair, or otherwise exemplary may provide additional opportunities for activists to highlight contradictions between discourse and conditions on the ground, whether through public campaigns or complaints lodged with certification bodies. Document control number
2012 © Sustainable Fisheries Partnership
sustainablefish.org
What’s the problem? • What does good look like? Is „good enough‟ good enough?
• Not everyone agrees, what can I do? • Who is a good brand partner? • There isn‟t enough „good‟ fish • The goal posts keep moving • Where will it all be in 5 years time? • My needs are special/unique/different
Document control number
2012 © Sustainable Fisheries Partnership
sustainablefish.org
Decisions pyramid CONSUMER – simple proposition built on action, brand, reputation, trust. The Message
PRODUCER – 1-2 do-able propositions. Support for change. The Action. YOU – the noise, the contradiction, the complexity, the decision area, the framework and scope criteria. The Decision
What does the Standard do? • The goal of ecolabelling programmes is to create marketbased incentives for better management of the environment • Ecolabelling has become an increasingly important tool in the promotion of sustainable forestry and seafood products around the world
(Teisl et al., 2002; Cashore et al., 2003; Roheim, 2008)
Which Standard? • Mission led • All fisheries proactively enter in the process • Extensive stakeholder engagement • Conditions • It improves fisheries, provides a level of assurance, has a global programme
• The motivation? • Only open to regional/country specific fisheries • Limited stakeholder engagement • Conditions unlikely • Does it improve fisheries or provide a level of assurance?
Expectations and Frames
GT/FAO based standard • Global Trust is NOT a standards owner nor is the Global Trust logo a specific eco-label, we are an ISO Accredited independent Certification body delivering certification to specific standards. Global Trust's certifications are used to communicate specifics such as Food Safety, Organic, Superior Quality, Eco and Responsible Management.
Global Trust does assist many standards owners with accreditation and certification criteria for standards and also acts as Certification Managers for a number of national and international programs. • More simple, cheaper, no logo licensing, “pride of provenance”
GT/FAO based standard Alaskan salmon • What happens to the outstanding MSC conditions ? • Are fears over hatchery impacts unfounded? • What are the implications of „self standards‟?
• How will Iceland manage the golden redfish certification? Management advice • ICES advises, as was done last year, that there should be no directed trawl fishery on Sebastes marinus in Subareas I and II in 2011. Area closures should be maintained and by-catch limits should be as low as possible until a significant increase in the spawning-stock biomass (and a subsequent increase in the number of juveniles) has been verified. .
The Standards smorgasbord SEAFOOD STANDARDS • • • • • • • •
MSC ASC GAA ISO TC 234 IFFO RS Friends of the Sea Retailers‟ own Regional Standards (Alaska, Iceland, MEL) • GlobalGAP
FOOD STANDARDS Labelling Hygiene Safety Traceability Organic Fair Trade Welfare Carbon
(27) RATINGS Seafood Watch Blue Ocean MCS NSF WWF WWF WWF WWF
What do you use Standards for?
• Benchmarking? • Policy making? • Fisheries Improvement Plans? • Aquaculture Improvement Plans?
• Investment indicators? • Reputation guardians and brand developers?
Using Standards
Expectations • Standard holders as Brand partners and Responsible Standard management
Is your Standard partner: • • • • • • • • •
Sharing your vision Protecting and building brand Adding value Testing scope and science Creating change Remaining appropriate Raising awareness Transparency, governance, processes for engagement Comprehensive and portable products and services
Expectations Standard setters have a clear set of objectives to help enable a sustainable and responsible supply of seafood, while protecting the systems and communities connected to those supplies. This will give them clarity of purpose and ensure that the supply chain through to the end consumer understands the benefits of certification. Standards are developed through a transparent, stakeholder inclusive process. We require appropriate FAO guidelines be followed, and ISEAL processes are, as a minimum, actively worked toward, to support this inclusive process. This will make the standards robust, comprehensive, and fit for purpose. Certification audits must be performed by auditors independent of the Standard setter and who work for certification bodies that meet, at a minimum, ISO65. These Certification bodies must be accredited to the appropriate standard by recognized international accreditation bodies. This is to comply with internationally agreed principles for auditing. Certification processes must be transparent and participatory, open to formal input and review, and provide opportunity for stakeholder comment and objection. This is to make sure all relevant opinions are sought and considered.
The Standard setter should demonstrate robust and transparent governance of the organisation's operations. This is to protect the standard from any bias and to ensure the that the standard does not change without due consultation with all relevant stakeholders including the certified supply chains. Standards and processes should overtly encourage, and have process to support, improvement. Improvement plans should have clear targets and timelines. This is to ensure any problems and issues are corrected promptly.
Expectations 2 Standard setters must work closely with providers of sound science, such as regional fisheries scientific advisory bodies (eg ICES), academic bodies, NGOs employing scientific advisors, fishermen‟s associations, farmers and governments. This will help ensure they set standards that measure all the relevant criteria and deliver a positive change in the water. Standard setters and Certification bodies commit to positively protect, and promote the collective reputation of seafood Standards, their market partners, and the aquaculture, seafood and fisheries industries engaged in the certification processes. This will reduce confusion, raise awareness of the need for responsible sourcing policies and draw more supply chains into the process. Standard setters work together to agree equivalence between standards and to improve the efficiency of the process. This will avoid consumer confusion between labels, lower costs for the consumer, and avoid duplication of audits. Standards bodies seek ways to collaborate and share knowledge and data in an appropriate way, respecting confidentiality. This will promote the development of a responsible international seafood industry.
Expectations 3 FAQs Which Standards do you support? We support a number of different Standards, provided they meet these expectations
Are all Standards equal? No. Different Standards offer different things. It is up to individual organisations to choose the Standard that meets their objectives. [optional; for example at Sainsbury/Findus we choose the MSC because we feel it meets our demanding requirements for sustainable seafood] How do you monitor if Standard holders meet these Expectations? We work closely with those providing the Standards, and the Certification Bodies. Are there Standards holders that don’t meet these Expectations? If there are, we aren’t using those Standards, but we hope that all seafood Standards can and will meet these basic expectations in time Why did you come up with this List of Expectations? Because the field of seafood Standards continues to evolve and develop. It is a complex field where we are continually learning, and where not everyone agrees with each other – as such we thought it helpful to acknowledge the framework within which we expect our Standards partners to work. This means that if there is some changes and debate along the journey we can be sure that we all agree on the over arching principles that pertain to good governance and collectively building a responsible, sustainable sector.
The Standards smorgasbord SEAFOOD STANDARDS • • • • • • • •
MSC ASC GAA ISO TC 234 IFFO RS Friends of the Sea Retailers‟ own Regional Standards (Alaska, Iceland, MEL) • GlobalGAP
FOOD STANDARDS Labelling Hygiene Safety Traceability Organic Fair Trade Welfare Carbon
(27) RATINGS Seafood Watch Blue Ocean MCS NSF WWF WWF WWF WWF
No
Yes
Do you need a standard for Salmon or Shrimp?
Promotes Aquaculture Improvement plans ISEAL Member Yes
Non ISEAL member
No ASC
SFP
Yes
No
No active support for improvement
WWF
Logo
GAA
Should the standard include farm improvement plans? Do you want the standard to be an ISEAL member?
ASC
Business to Business No
Yes
GAA
No Logo
GlobalGAP
Other NGO Ass.
Are you looking for a label on package?
Stakeholder involvement important ASC
GAA
Yes
GlobalGAP
Transparency of criteria important WWF
SFP
Is the transparency of criteria used for customer guidance important to you?
Stakeholder involvement not critical
No
Yes
Consumer guidance Red, amber, green ratings
Label
FoS NGO Ass.
Are you looking for Transparent Governance & Stakeholder involvement in standard setting?
What sort of consumer interface are you looking for?
Third-Party Certified ISO 65 Compliant ASC
GAA
FoS
Standard
Species
GAA
Shrimp, Tilapia, Pangasius & Channel Catfish
Current: Tilapia, Pangasius; Future: Abalone; Bivalves; Cobia; Freshwater Trout; Salmon; Seriola; Shrimp GlobalGAP All: Crustaceans, Finfish, Molluscs
Verified GlobalGAP
NGO Ass.
Processing ? Yes
Are you looking for a standard that is certified or verified?
ASC
FoS NGO
All: Mussels; Shrimp; FW (including Pangasius, Salmon, Tilapia, Trou All
START:Are you looking for a standard with an overarching objective towards sustainable and responsible fisheries? ASC
GAA
GlobalGAP
FoS
NGO Ass.
FARMED FISH
Label required
Transparency of No assessment criteria not critical
ISEAL Member
Yes
Promotes Fisheries Yes Improvement plans
No Non ISEAL Member
No
No active support for fisheries improvement
MSC Iceland RF
Would you like the standard organisation to be a member of ISEAL?
MSC
Iceland RF
Should the standard include fisheries improvement plans?
Governance not critical
No
Robust & transparent governance Yes Alaska S.
WWF
SFP
Transparency important
Is the governance of the standard organisation important? (i.e. transparent, open to formal input and review, provides opportunities for stakeholder comment & objections)
No
Label on Product MSC
FoS
SFP
Yes
Iceland RF
No
Alaska S.
Are you looking for a label on the product?
Verified
Iceland RF
Alaska S.
NGO Ass.
Are you looking for a standard that is certified or verified?
Key NGO Ass: NGO Assessments MSC: Marine Stewardship Council FoS: Friends of the Sea
START: Are you looking for a standard with an overarching objective towards sustainable and responsible fisheries?
Iceland RF: Iceland Responsible Fisheries Alaska S: Alaska Seafood
MSC
Consumer guidance Red, amber, green ratings NGO Ass.
Third-Party Certified ISO 65 Compliant FoS
Other NGO Ass.
Is the transparency of criteria used for customer guidance important to you?
Are you looking for a label on the product?
MSC
Transparency not critical
FOS WWF
No Label
No
Yes
FoS
Iceland RF
Alaska S.
NGO Ass.
WILD FISHERIES
Alaska S.
Living with Decision
Ally Dingwall Aquaculture & Fisheries Manager Sainsbury
Fish Overview £400 million annual sales 50:50 wild to farmed 18% market share in fish 5 species – 80% of sales
Business Values
Defining Sustainable Fish
Illegal Unregulated Unreported
Legal
Responsible
Sustainable
Introduced Sustainability Rating Systems in 2006
Every fishery rated prior to supply
20 by 20 CR Commitments – October 2011
20 by 20 Fish Target “By 2020, all the fish we sell will be independently certified as sustainable and we’ll strengthen our position as the leading retailer for sustainable seafood”
Approach to Certification and Eco-labelling Robust independent certification Chain of Custody
No MSC equivalent for farmed fish
In development for 2012
We are the UK’s Largest Retailer of MSC Certified Fish
Why ?
Customers Business Growth
Brand Values Business Security
Meeting Challenges from Customer Influencers
Increasing Consumer Awareness and Challenge Increased purchase of “endorsed” species Move towards “endorsed” fishing and farming methods Increase in customer contacts, feedback and awareness Future need for independent verification and guarantees on traceability
Thank you
Decisions pyramid
CONSUMER – simple proposition built on action, brand, reputation, trust PRODUCER – 1-2 do-able propositions. Support for change. YOU – the noise, the complexity, the decision area, the framework and scope criteria. The ACTION
Communicating ‘Standards’
Sustainable Seafood Coalition
Nigel Edwards Technical Director of Seachill and Sustainability Director of Icelandic Group
The Sustainable Seafood Coalition
SSC - what is it about? Consistent and clear labelling
Promoting underutilised / bycatch species
Sustainable Seafood Coalition
Data Collection
Agreed sourcing standards
Confusing Seafood Labelling Landscape ISO Type-I
GLOBALG.A.P.
ISO
Farmed fish provenance
Wild capture fishery provenance
Extract from SSC Aims • Encourage UK consumers to eat a wider variety of sustainable seafood • Support the sustainable use of unwanted discarded species
• Use harmonized seafood labelling based on agreed standards to provide consumers with accurate information on sustainability • Influence changes in policy • Build national and global alliances
Hypothetical Examples
+
=‘Sustainably sourced’
(Hasting Dover Sole, Herring and Mackerel)
=‘Responsibly sourced’
(Low risk /well managed /or in Fishery Improvement Project)
=‘Responsibly farmed’
(Organic/GAA/GlobalGAP etc etc )
=‘Irish Sea Cod’ (No claim)
End
Melanie Siggs Sustainable Fisheries Partnership
What’s the problem? • Markets are filled with debate, conflict, and strategic maneuvering, making them more akin to politics than to mere exchange (Fligstein 2001). • In this setting, certification ―can be appropriated, used, and justified in a variety of of political and politico-economic fields (Ponte 2008:168). • Certification initiatives provide a possible platform for two types of ―challengers. First, there are firms that seek to unseat the dominant position of (usually large, well-established) incumbent firms (Fligstein 2001). • Challenger firms may seek to leverage certification to increase their visibility or market share. Second, there are challengers activated by social movements (King and Soule 2007). • The existence of operations certified as sustainable, fair, or otherwise exemplary may provide additional opportunities for activists to highlight contradictions between discourse and conditions on the ground, whether through public campaigns or complaints lodged with certification bodies. Document control number
2012 © Sustainable Fisheries Partnership
sustainablefish.org
What’s the problem? • What does good look like? Is „good enough‟ good enough?
• Not everyone agrees, what can I do? • Who is a good brand partner? • There isn‟t enough „good‟ fish • The goal posts keep moving • Where will it all be in 5 years time? • My needs are special/unique/different
Document control number
2012 © Sustainable Fisheries Partnership
sustainablefish.org
Decisions pyramid CONSUMER – simple proposition built on action, brand, reputation, trust. The Message
PRODUCER – 1-2 do-able propositions. Support for change. The Action. YOU – the noise, the contradiction, the complexity, the decision area, the framework and scope criteria. The Decision
What does the Standard do? • The goal of ecolabelling programmes is to create marketbased incentives for better management of the environment • Ecolabelling has become an increasingly important tool in the promotion of sustainable forestry and seafood products around the world
(Teisl et al., 2002; Cashore et al., 2003; Roheim, 2008)
Which Standard? • Mission led • All fisheries proactively enter in the process • Extensive stakeholder engagement • Conditions • It improves fisheries, provides a level of assurance, has a global programme
• The motivation? • Only open to regional/country specific fisheries • Limited stakeholder engagement • Conditions unlikely • Does it improve fisheries or provide a level of assurance?
Expectations and Frames
GT/FAO based standard • Global Trust is NOT a standards owner nor is the Global Trust logo a specific eco-label, we are an ISO Accredited independent Certification body delivering certification to specific standards. Global Trust's certifications are used to communicate specifics such as Food Safety, Organic, Superior Quality, Eco and Responsible Management.
Global Trust does assist many standards owners with accreditation and certification criteria for standards and also acts as Certification Managers for a number of national and international programs. • More simple, cheaper, no logo licensing, “pride of provenance”
GT/FAO based standard Alaskan salmon • What happens to the outstanding MSC conditions ? • Are fears over hatchery impacts unfounded? • What are the implications of „self standards‟?
• How will Iceland manage the golden redfish certification? Management advice • ICES advises, as was done last year, that there should be no directed trawl fishery on Sebastes marinus in Subareas I and II in 2011. Area closures should be maintained and by-catch limits should be as low as possible until a significant increase in the spawning-stock biomass (and a subsequent increase in the number of juveniles) has been verified. .
The Standards smorgasbord SEAFOOD STANDARDS • • • • • • • •
MSC ASC GAA ISO TC 234 IFFO RS Friends of the Sea Retailers‟ own Regional Standards (Alaska, Iceland, MEL) • GlobalGAP
FOOD STANDARDS Labelling Hygiene Safety Traceability Organic Fair Trade Welfare Carbon
(27) RATINGS Seafood Watch Blue Ocean MCS NSF WWF WWF WWF WWF
What do you use Standards for?
• Benchmarking? • Policy making? • Fisheries Improvement Plans? • Aquaculture Improvement Plans?
• Investment indicators? • Reputation guardians and brand developers?
Using Standards
Expectations • Standard holders as Brand partners and Responsible Standard management
Is your Standard partner: • • • • • • • • •
Sharing your vision Protecting and building brand Adding value Testing scope and science Creating change Remaining appropriate Raising awareness Transparency, governance, processes for engagement Comprehensive and portable products and services
Expectations Standard setters have a clear set of objectives to help enable a sustainable and responsible supply of seafood, while protecting the systems and communities connected to those supplies. This will give them clarity of purpose and ensure that the supply chain through to the end consumer understands the benefits of certification. Standards are developed through a transparent, stakeholder inclusive process. We require appropriate FAO guidelines be followed, and ISEAL processes are, as a minimum, actively worked toward, to support this inclusive process. This will make the standards robust, comprehensive, and fit for purpose. Certification audits must be performed by auditors independent of the Standard setter and who work for certification bodies that meet, at a minimum, ISO65. These Certification bodies must be accredited to the appropriate standard by recognized international accreditation bodies. This is to comply with internationally agreed principles for auditing. Certification processes must be transparent and participatory, open to formal input and review, and provide opportunity for stakeholder comment and objection. This is to make sure all relevant opinions are sought and considered.
The Standard setter should demonstrate robust and transparent governance of the organisation's operations. This is to protect the standard from any bias and to ensure the that the standard does not change without due consultation with all relevant stakeholders including the certified supply chains. Standards and processes should overtly encourage, and have process to support, improvement. Improvement plans should have clear targets and timelines. This is to ensure any problems and issues are corrected promptly.
Expectations 2 Standard setters must work closely with providers of sound science, such as regional fisheries scientific advisory bodies (eg ICES), academic bodies, NGOs employing scientific advisors, fishermen‟s associations, farmers and governments. This will help ensure they set standards that measure all the relevant criteria and deliver a positive change in the water. Standard setters and Certification bodies commit to positively protect, and promote the collective reputation of seafood Standards, their market partners, and the aquaculture, seafood and fisheries industries engaged in the certification processes. This will reduce confusion, raise awareness of the need for responsible sourcing policies and draw more supply chains into the process. Standard setters work together to agree equivalence between standards and to improve the efficiency of the process. This will avoid consumer confusion between labels, lower costs for the consumer, and avoid duplication of audits. Standards bodies seek ways to collaborate and share knowledge and data in an appropriate way, respecting confidentiality. This will promote the development of a responsible international seafood industry.
Expectations 3 FAQs Which Standards do you support? We support a number of different Standards, provided they meet these expectations
Are all Standards equal? No. Different Standards offer different things. It is up to individual organisations to choose the Standard that meets their objectives. [optional; for example at Sainsbury/Findus we choose the MSC because we feel it meets our demanding requirements for sustainable seafood] How do you monitor if Standard holders meet these Expectations? We work closely with those providing the Standards, and the Certification Bodies. Are there Standards holders that don’t meet these Expectations? If there are, we aren’t using those Standards, but we hope that all seafood Standards can and will meet these basic expectations in time Why did you come up with this List of Expectations? Because the field of seafood Standards continues to evolve and develop. It is a complex field where we are continually learning, and where not everyone agrees with each other – as such we thought it helpful to acknowledge the framework within which we expect our Standards partners to work. This means that if there is some changes and debate along the journey we can be sure that we all agree on the over arching principles that pertain to good governance and collectively building a responsible, sustainable sector.
The Standards smorgasbord SEAFOOD STANDARDS • • • • • • • •
MSC ASC GAA ISO TC 234 IFFO RS Friends of the Sea Retailers‟ own Regional Standards (Alaska, Iceland, MEL) • GlobalGAP
FOOD STANDARDS Labelling Hygiene Safety Traceability Organic Fair Trade Welfare Carbon
(27) RATINGS Seafood Watch Blue Ocean MCS NSF WWF WWF WWF WWF
No
Yes
Do you need a standard for Salmon or Shrimp?
Promotes Aquaculture Improvement plans ISEAL Member Yes
Non ISEAL member
No ASC
SFP
Yes
No
No active support for improvement
WWF
Logo
GAA
Should the standard include farm improvement plans? Do you want the standard to be an ISEAL member?
ASC
Business to Business No
Yes
GAA
No Logo
GlobalGAP
Other NGO Ass.
Are you looking for a label on package?
Stakeholder involvement important ASC
GAA
Yes
GlobalGAP
Transparency of criteria important WWF
SFP
Is the transparency of criteria used for customer guidance important to you?
Stakeholder involvement not critical
No
Yes
Consumer guidance Red, amber, green ratings
Label
FoS NGO Ass.
Are you looking for Transparent Governance & Stakeholder involvement in standard setting?
What sort of consumer interface are you looking for?
Third-Party Certified ISO 65 Compliant ASC
GAA
FoS
Standard
Species
GAA
Shrimp, Tilapia, Pangasius & Channel Catfish
Current: Tilapia, Pangasius; Future: Abalone; Bivalves; Cobia; Freshwater Trout; Salmon; Seriola; Shrimp GlobalGAP All: Crustaceans, Finfish, Molluscs
Verified GlobalGAP
NGO Ass.
Processing ? Yes
Are you looking for a standard that is certified or verified?
ASC
FoS NGO
All: Mussels; Shrimp; FW (including Pangasius, Salmon, Tilapia, Trou All
START:Are you looking for a standard with an overarching objective towards sustainable and responsible fisheries? ASC
GAA
GlobalGAP
FoS
NGO Ass.
FARMED FISH
Label required
Transparency of No assessment criteria not critical
ISEAL Member
Yes
Promotes Fisheries Yes Improvement plans
No Non ISEAL Member
No
No active support for fisheries improvement
MSC Iceland RF
Would you like the standard organisation to be a member of ISEAL?
MSC
Iceland RF
Should the standard include fisheries improvement plans?
Governance not critical
No
Robust & transparent governance Yes Alaska S.
WWF
SFP
Transparency important
Is the governance of the standard organisation important? (i.e. transparent, open to formal input and review, provides opportunities for stakeholder comment & objections)
No
Label on Product MSC
FoS
SFP
Yes
Iceland RF
No
Alaska S.
Are you looking for a label on the product?
Verified
Iceland RF
Alaska S.
NGO Ass.
Are you looking for a standard that is certified or verified?
Key NGO Ass: NGO Assessments MSC: Marine Stewardship Council FoS: Friends of the Sea
START: Are you looking for a standard with an overarching objective towards sustainable and responsible fisheries?
Iceland RF: Iceland Responsible Fisheries Alaska S: Alaska Seafood
MSC
Consumer guidance Red, amber, green ratings NGO Ass.
Third-Party Certified ISO 65 Compliant FoS
Other NGO Ass.
Is the transparency of criteria used for customer guidance important to you?
Are you looking for a label on the product?
MSC
Transparency not critical
FOS WWF
No Label
No
Yes
FoS
Iceland RF
Alaska S.
NGO Ass.
WILD FISHERIES
Alaska S.
Living with Decision
Ally Dingwall Aquaculture & Fisheries Manager Sainsbury
Fish Overview £400 million annual sales 50:50 wild to farmed 18% market share in fish 5 species – 80% of sales
Business Values
Defining Sustainable Fish
Illegal Unregulated Unreported
Legal
Responsible
Sustainable
Introduced Sustainability Rating Systems in 2006
Every fishery rated prior to supply
20 by 20 CR Commitments – October 2011
20 by 20 Fish Target “By 2020, all the fish we sell will be independently certified as sustainable and we’ll strengthen our position as the leading retailer for sustainable seafood”
Approach to Certification and Eco-labelling Robust independent certification Chain of Custody
No MSC equivalent for farmed fish
In development for 2012
We are the UK’s Largest Retailer of MSC Certified Fish
Why ?
Customers Business Growth
Brand Values Business Security
Meeting Challenges from Customer Influencers
Increasing Consumer Awareness and Challenge Increased purchase of “endorsed” species Move towards “endorsed” fishing and farming methods Increase in customer contacts, feedback and awareness Future need for independent verification and guarantees on traceability
Thank you
Decisions pyramid
CONSUMER – simple proposition built on action, brand, reputation, trust PRODUCER – 1-2 do-able propositions. Support for change. YOU – the noise, the complexity, the decision area, the framework and scope criteria. The ACTION
Communicating ‘Standards’
Sustainable Seafood Coalition
Nigel Edwards Technical Director of Seachill and Sustainability Director of Icelandic Group
The Sustainable Seafood Coalition
SSC - what is it about? Consistent and clear labelling
Promoting underutilised / bycatch species
Sustainable Seafood Coalition
Data Collection
Agreed sourcing standards
Confusing Seafood Labelling Landscape ISO Type-I
GLOBALG.A.P.
ISO
Farmed fish provenance
Wild capture fishery provenance
Extract from SSC Aims • Encourage UK consumers to eat a wider variety of sustainable seafood • Support the sustainable use of unwanted discarded species
• Use harmonized seafood labelling based on agreed standards to provide consumers with accurate information on sustainability • Influence changes in policy • Build national and global alliances
Hypothetical Examples
+
=‘Sustainably sourced’
(Hasting Dover Sole, Herring and Mackerel)
=‘Responsibly sourced’
(Low risk /well managed /or in Fishery Improvement Project)
=‘Responsibly farmed’
(Organic/GAA/GlobalGAP etc etc )
=‘Irish Sea Cod’ (No claim)
End
