Enlisting the Consumer in Sustainable Fisheries Production
Cathy Wessells, Professor
Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics
Cathy Wessells earned a PhD in resource economics from the University of
California, Davis. She has built a research and teaching program around the
need for a better understanding of how national and international markets for
fisheries products can affect the value of fisheries resources and the effectiveness
of fisheries management. Wessells is the chair of the Department of Environmental
and Natural Resource Economics.
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.