In 1994, the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations published a controversial report
stating that 60 percent of the world's fisheries are either fully
utilized or overutilized. The results of this study and other
events, such as large-scale driftnet fishing and bycatch of endangered
turtles, have galvanized environmental nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) to act to protect sea life. Their most recent approach
to this goal is to convince the seafood consumer to play a pivotal
role.
For example, the Audubon Society,
Monterey Bay Aquarium, and Environmental Defense have published
lists of seafood appropriate for consumers to buy and seafood
to be avoided based on their scientists' assessments of population
abundance in the wild, levels of bycatch, and how environmentally
responsible harvesting and farming techniques are. Common to all
these lists is that consumers can feel good about purchasing Alaskan
salmon whose stocks and habitat are relatively healthy but should
avoid Atlantic cod, which is sadly overfished in Atlantic Canada
and the northeastern United States. In another example, SeaWeb
(a public education project) and the National Resources Defense
Council teamed up to promote the "Give Swordfish a Break"
campaign, which encouraged chefs to remove swordfish from their
menus, led a consumer boycott of swordfish to prevent the sale
of juvenile swordfish in the United States, and worked to improve
international swordfish management.
This is not the territory of NGOs
alone, however. Unilever, a major international corporation with
25 percent of the frozen fish market in Europe and the United
States, began worrying about the future availability of supplies
of raw product as fish stocks become more depleted. In 1996, the
corporation joined with the World Wildlife Fund to create the
independent Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). The MSC uses ecolabeling
as a means to promote sustainable marine capture fisheries, and
Unilever has pledged to buy only ecolabeled fish products, in
all product forms, after 2005. Other signatories include Legal
Seafoods, Shaw's Supermarkets, and Wholefoods---the owner of Bread
and Circus supermarkets.
What is a sustainable fishery and
how does it merit an ecolabel? The MSC has laid out a set of principles
that are at the core of any sustainable fishery: a fishery that
is not overfished or, if it is, demonstrably shows recovery; fishing
operations that minimize negative effects on the ecosystem; and
an effectively managed fishery. If a fishery can demonstrate to
the certification firm (a private, third-party firm independent
of the fishery or the MSC) that it meets all three standards,
then the fishery is certified sustainable. Processors must further
obtain chain-of-custody certification to ensure that they keep
sustainable fisheries products separate from products of other
(unsustainable or not-yet-certified) fisheries. At that point,
the ecolabel can be attached to the product (regardless of product
form) as the product moves through the market chain from processors
to wholesalers to retailers. Three fisheries have been certified
so far: the Western Australian rock lobster, the Thames River
herring, and the Alaska salmon fisheries. As a result, consumers
will eventually see labeled Western Australian rock lobsters,
frozen tails, and fresh, frozen, and canned salmon products at
their markets and in restaurants.
The MSC is not the only organization
to initiate an international ecolabeling program. The Scandinavian
countries may soon promote a new ecolabel for seafood, and the
Global Aquaculture Alliance supports ecolabeling of aquacultured
products, particularly shrimp. At the moment, there are no country-specific
ecolabeling programs. Country-specific, mandatory labeling programs
run by national governments risk becoming nontariff trade barriers
and running afoul of the World Trade Organization.
The most famous ecolabel is probably
the dolphin-safe label carried on canned tuna. While this labeling
is voluntary, one would be hard-pressed to find a can of tuna
in a supermarket today that does not have it. The MSC hopes to
make its ecolabel equally prominent in supermarkets and restaurants.
The goal is to educate the consumer so that when faced with a
choice between an ecolabeled seafood product and an unlabeled
product, the consumer will choose the ecolabeled product and may
even be willing to pay a premium for it. Those promoting the use
of this ecolabel refer to the 20 percent to 40 percent premium
paid by consumers for organic fruits and vegetables. The aim is
to create a groundswell of consumer support that will provide
a market-based incentive for fisheries managers to promote sustainable
fisheries.
Do you prefer seafood from a sustainable
fishery? Are you willing to pay more for it? Does your willingness
to pay more for ecolabeled seafood depend on species? Mackerel,
after all, are not exactly cute and cuddly. Who would you trust
to certify your seafood, a government agency or an independent
group? If you live in the United Kingdom, chances are you don't
trust the government to get it right after the episode with mad
cow disease. Your responses to these questions, and the responses
of other consumers, will dictate the ultimate success of the ecolabeling
program. After all, if only a few consumers will pay more for
ecolabeled seafood, then a different message will be sent to fisheries
managers: We want our fish, sustainability doesn't matter.
In a recent study of 1,640 consumers
across the United States, we found that consumers are interested
in purchasing ecolabeled salmon, cod, and shrimp and are even
willing to pay more for it. However, consumers' actual preferences
for ecolabeled seafood will depend on how strongly they feel about
protecting the ecology of the oceans. This may depend on their
awareness of the issues underlying the certification process and
the subsequent ecolabel. Seventy percent of consumers contacted
in this study were unsure if Atlantic cod is overfished, and 62
percent were unsure if Pacific salmon is overfished.
Proponents of ecolabeling cite
the success of the organic produce market. It is not, however,
clear that consumers will treat ecolabeled products similarly.
One of the interesting differences between organic and ecolabeled
products lies in the definition of the term organic. Organic implies
that produce has been unadulterated with chemicals such as herbicides
and pesticides and is "good" for the environment. Those
of us who remember when AlarŪ was sprayed on apples to make them
shiny and to enhance their appeal but was then found to be toxic
to humans, can understand why consumers are concerned for their
families' health and for the environment and why the market share
of organic produce has increased. In the case of ecolabels, ecological
concerns alone must drive consumer preferences toward the ecolabeled
product. Are our environmental concerns strong enough? The results
will be played out in the market.
What are some of the controversies
surrounding ecolabeling programs like the one promoted by the
MSC? We can begin with identifying which fisheries qualify for
certification. Any fishery can apply for certification. The fisheries
that are most likely to be successful are those that are relatively
uncomplicated, like the three that were mentioned previously.
Fisheries that straddle national boundaries or are highly migratory
will be more complicated and difficult to certify. In addition,
fisheries that are difficult to monitor will likely not be certified.
In other words, fisheries that are not well managed will not be
certified.
Who pays for certification? In
the case of the Thames River herring fishery, the fishermen paid
for certification. The government of Western Australia and the
rock lobster industry shared the cost of certification for the
Western Australia rock lobster, and the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game paid for certification of the Alaskan salmon fishery.
Thus, there has been a mixture of private industry and government
funding. Of course, government funding can appear to be yet another
fishing industry subsidy.
What is the cost of certification?
That depends on how complex a fishery is. The actual certification
costs can range from a few thousand dollars to several hundred
thousand dollars. Are there additional costs generated by changing
management practices to assure sustainable fisheries? Can a fishing
industry group or a governmental group afford the changes necessary
to transform an unsustainable fishery into a sustainable fishery?
Money alone is not necessarily sufficient to realize those changes.
Can developing countries afford certification of their fisheries?
If they find the resources for certification, do they have the
resources to manage a fishery by the MSC's principles and criteria?
Will the world seafood market become segregated so only wealthy
nations can afford to certify fisheries, only wealthy consumers
can afford ecolabeled products, and developing countries trade
in unlabeled or unsustainable seafood?
Effective fisheries management
has not been globally successful, and we are slow in looking for
alternative approaches. Market-based incentives such as ecolabeling
may well be what is needed to encourage better management. On
the supply side, even though there are concerns about equitable
implementation of certification programs, the integrity of the
certifying body, and the definition of a sustainable fishery,
transparency and openness in the certification process may be
the key to credible ecolabeling programs. On the demand side,
awareness of the issues underlying the need for an ecolabeling
program, trust in the legitimacy of the label, and interest in
the health of the marine environment may well lead to demand for
seafood products from sustainable fisheries. As a result of effective
ecolabeling programs, supply and demand may together create economic
incentives to improve fisheries management globally. At this stage
in the evolution of fisheries management, it is worth a try. 
