EU Market Access and Eco-Laberlling

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling for Fishery and Aquaculture Products. sippo.ch

Publisher.

Publisher Osec Stampfenbachstrasse 85, P.O. Box 2407, CH-8021 Zurich Direct phone +41 44 365 52 68 / Fax +41 44 365 52 21 Author Francisco Blaha Layout and design Beate Rüttiger Cover photo Fishing Vessel Orion I - Argentina (foto de M. Capizano) © M. Capizzano Photos and illustrations © F. Blaha, except page 39 © Dirkje Bakker The author is an independent fisheries specialist based in New Zealand. He has been involved with commercial fishing and research since the mid-1980s. He works in institutional strengthening, capacity building and applied research for the private sector and international development organisations in more than 35 countries worldwide. www.franciscoblaha.com For more information: Constantin Kostyal Project Manager Food Programme Osec SIPPO Swiss Import Promotion Programme Stampfenbachstrasse 85, P.O. Box 2407, CH-8021 Zurich Direct phone +41 44 365 52 68 / Fax +41 44 365 52 21 ckostyal@osec.ch / www.osec.ch

2

l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

Introduction.

This publication provides a guideline to the regulatory requirements for exporting of seafood products to the European Union.

It describes the EU system of official assurances, the main regulations, requirements for the Competent Authorities and operators along the value chain with regards to health and non-IUU catch certification. It also includes a chapter on private eco-label schemes and their role in the EU seafood market.

This bulletin was prepared by Francisco Blaha, SIPPO Consultant, and reviewed by Constan tin Kostyal, Project Manager Food Programme, SIPPO Swiss Import Promotion Programme.

Disclaimer SIPPO, the Swiss Import Promotion Programme, is a mandate of the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, SECO, within the framework of its economic development cooperation. It is carried out by Osec, the official Swiss foreign trade promotion agency.

The programme helps small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in developing and transition countries to gain access to the Swiss and European markets by providing information, training courses and other matchmaking services. SIPPO also assists importers from Switzerland and the European Union with finding suitable partners and high-quality products from selected developing and transition countries.

The programme has five main goals: • To inform the Swiss and European import economy about new market sources • To strengthen trade institutions and business sector associations in the trade promotion process • To increase the competitiveness of SMEs in selected partner countries • To develop the manufacturing and exporting skills of SMEs in selected partner countries • To establish qualified trade contacts between SMEs from emerging markets and markets in transition and the Swiss and European import economy

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l

3

Foreword.

The EU market is a wonderful place to be for any producer willing

and development cooperation with poorer countries, trade-related

to sell its products, with its over 500 million inhabitants, all among

cooperation, including social and environmental aspects, takes on

the world‘s wealthiest. But the EU market is also a very challen-

a major importance. The overall aim is to boost trade as a trigger

ging place to access, with thousands of enterprises competing

for growth and sustainable development.

for share, on the one hand, and strict quality standards set by a selective consumer base.

Specifically, SECO runs programmes to promote imports to Switzerland and the rest of Europe from goods, including fish,

The above is especially true with respect to fish and fishery prod-

produced in developing countries. In this endeavour, SECO has

ucts. On the one hand, the EU is the largest single fish market,

set up the Swiss Import Promotion Programme SIPPO which

with imports amounting to 15 billion EURO in 2009, on a quickly

works directly with enterprises, providing them with counseling

rising trend. On the other hand, although it offers generous tariff

and market information services and directly fostering their access

concessions to developing countries (and tariff freedom to least

to markets via trade fairs.

developed countries), the EU also puts high demands on products, regarding product quality, fishing, processing, etc. Likewise,

The present publication on EU Market Access for fish and fish

Switzerland provides a promising market, although on a much

products is an excellent example of SIPPO’s interventions aimed

smaller footing: each of its 7 million inhabitants consumes (only)

at fostering access to the European market through information

10 kg of fish products every year (EU: 22 kg). By definition (Swit-

dissemination. It provides the reader with tangible and lively ad-

zerland is a land-locked country), fish products come from abroad,

vice which should lead to market penetration in Europe. I wish you

mostly the EU, making Switzerland the 1st market worldwide for

a pleasant reading!

EU fish products. So, entering the EU market enables accessing an even wider market, including Switzerland.

It is a general rule that exports constitute an essential source of revenues for all countries. The State Secretariat for Economic

Hans-Peter Egler

Affairs SECO has recognized the key role of trade for developing

Head of Trade Promotion, Economic Cooperation and Develop-

countries. Among the instruments it deploys within its economic

ment, State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SECO

4

l  EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

Contents.

1

About this booklet............................................ 6

6.6.1 Weak economic imperatives....................................... 33

1.1

Guidance table............................................................. 6

6.6.2 Certification costs....................................................... 33

2

Is it complicated to export to the EU?...... 8

6.6.3 Weak institutional capabilities..................................... 34 6.7

What about organic aquaculture?............................... 35

6.7.1 EU regulatory framework for organic products........... 35

3

Health certification.. ........................................ 9

6.8

Which way to go for Eco-Labelling?............................ 36

3.1

The basics.................................................................... 9

6.9

Key fisheries eco-labels available in the market......... 37

3.2

The health certificate.................................................... 9

6.9.1 Marine Stewardship Council....................................... 38

3.2.1 The Food and Veterinary Office.................................. 10

6.9.2 Friend of the Sea (fisheries)....................................... 38

3.3

Requirements for food business operators................. 10

6.9.3 KRAV (fisheries)......................................................... 39

3.3.1 Approved Establishments........................................... 10

6.9.4 Naturland (fisheries)................................................... 39

3.3.2 Conditions of operators along the production chain... 11

6.10

3.4

Requirements for all fishery products......................... 12

6.10.1 Aquaculture Certification Council............................... 40

3.4.1 Specific requirements for aquaculture products......... 13

6.10.2 Global GAP................................................................. 41

3.5

Official controls........................................................... 14

6.10.3 Friend of the Sea (aquaculture).................................. 41

3.5.1 Signing the certificate................................................. 16

6.10.4 Aquaculture Stewardship Council............................... 42

3.5.2 Certification and eligibility........................................... 16

6.10.5 Naturland (aquaculture).............................................. 42

3.5.3 Traceability.................................................................. 17

6.10.6 Bio Suisse................................................................... 43

3.5.4 Laboratories to be used for official controls................ 17

6.10.7 KRAV (aquaculture).................................................... 43

3.6

Border Inspection Posts.............................................. 18

3.6.1 Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed...................... 18 3.7

What about the regulations?....................................... 18

3.7.1 Key regulations for fish and fishery products.............. 20 3.7.2 Key regulations for bivalve molluscs........................... 21

4

IUU Regulation.. .............................................. 22

4.1

The basics.................................................................. 22

Key aquaculture eco-labels........................................ 40

7

Bibliography.. .................................................... 44

8

Endnotes............................................................. 46

9

Glossary............................................................... 47

4.1.1 What is IUU fishing?................................................... 22 4.2

How does the catch certificate operate?.................... 24

4.2.1 Trade flows.................................................................. 25

5

The relationship between health and IUU certification.............................................. 26

5.1

Comparative table....................................................... 27

6

Eco-Labelling.. ................................................. 30

6.1

The basics.................................................................. 30

6.2

Why are they becoming important for the EU market?.... 30

6.3

Coverage and certification.......................................... 30

6.4

Producers: costs and benefits.................................... 31

6.4.1 Price premium............................................................ 32 6.4.2 Increased market share.............................................. 32 6.5

Consumers‘ perspective............................................. 32

6.6

Eco-labels in developing countries............................. 32

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l

5

1. About this booklet.

Exporting seafood to the European Union (EU) is not an obli-

“desirable” for your product. They do not have regulatory status,

gation, and it requires an equal amount of effort by the govern-

but can under certain circumstances facilitate the establishment of

ment authorities and the private sector of the exporting country.

market presence once access conditions have been fulfilled.

Compliance and understanding of the required system of official assurances is paramount in order to access the EU market.

As this publication focuses on EU market access, only some European-operated or EU market-oriented standards and certifi-

Until recently, the requirements of the EU solely focused on

cation programmes with strong market presence in the EU have

food safety/health certification. However, from 2010 onwards, a

been selected for identification. This is neither an exhaustive list,

“new” certification is required, with a focus on the area of Illegal,

nor an endorsement of the schemes identified.

Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU). These two “necessary certifications”, while allowing market “access”, do not guarantee

It is the aim of this publication to help potential and present

market “success“ per se.

exporters understand, on one side, the basics of the “necessary” market access certifications and, on the other, some key aspects

The positioning of your products in the EU market depends on

of the “desirable” ones. It is strongly recommended that the reader

many more factors. Some are relatively obvious, such as quality,

follows up with the references provided, and does research on the

price, presentation, market segmentation and reliability of supply.

topics that are not covered by this publication.

However, over the last years, other “certifications” are increasingly shaping the European seafood market landscape, and these relate

To facilitate the use of the booklet, the following table will help

to ethical and environmental issues associated to the sourcing,

identify the appropriate sections according to the reader’s interest

production and distribution of fish and fishery products. These

and needs.

private certification initiatives, known as Eco-Labelling, are

1.1 Guidance table.

QQ

Question?

Yes/No/Uncertain

Section

1

Is the EU a realistic market for your product?

Y: go to Q 2 N: stop here Uncertain: read section >

2

Are you aware of the general sanitary requirements policy for importing seafood and aquaculter products?

Y: go to Q 3 N: read section >

3

Is the producing country authorised for the export of seafood to the EU from a health certification aspect?

Y: go to Q 4 N: stop here Uncertain: read section >

3.1

Y: go to Q 5 N: stop here Uncertain: read section >

3.3

2

3

4

5

6

Is the producer approved for exporting to the EU?

Are you interested in the basics for the regulatory products requirements?

l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

Y: read section > N: go to Q 6

3.4

6

Are you interested in the basics of the required official controls?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 7

3.5

7

Are you interested in the interrelations and references of the key EU regulations regarding sanitary conditions?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 8

3.6

8

Are you aware of the general IUU requirements policy for seafood and aquaculture products imports?

Y: go to Q 9 N: read section >

4

Do the requirements of the IUU catch certification apply to the seafood products to be traded?

Y: go to Q 10 N: go to Q 13 Uncertain: read section >

4.1

9

10

Are you interested in the basics of what constitutes IUU fishing?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 11

4.2

11

Are you interested in the basics of catch certifications and trade flow requirements?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 12

4.3

12

Are you interested in the basics of the interrelations and differences between health and IUU certificates?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 13

5

13

Are eco-labels an area of interest for you or a commercial requirement for the fishery and aquaculture products concerned?

Y: read sections > N: go to Q 14

6, 6.1, 6.2

14

Are you interested in what eco-labels cover and in the certification process of eco-labels?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 15

6.3

15

Are you interested in the costs and benefits of eco-labels for producers?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 16

6.4, 6.5

16

Are you interested in the challenges facing Eco-Labelling in developing countries?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 17

6.6

17

Are you interested in organic aquaculture certification?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 18

6.7

18

Do you need information on how to choose an eco-label scheme?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 19

6.8

19

Are you interested in the key fishery eco-labels in the EU market?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 20

6.9

20

Are you interested in the key aquaculture ecolabels in the EU market?

Y: read section > N: go to Q 21

6.10

21

Are you interested in a selection of references and suggested readings for all these topics?

Y: read section > N: stop here

7

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling   l

7

2. Is it complicated to export to the EU? The European Union (EU) is the biggest single market for fish and

At present, the EU imports around 60% of its traded seafood

fishery products worldwide, as a consequence of an increased

from third countries, and even though the idea of accessing many

consumption per capita and its enlargement to 27 member states.

wealthy customers is very tempting, as a producer, your decision

1

While different EU member countries import different amounts,

to export to the EU has to be based on the market access situa-

all of them share the same market requirements for seafood

tion of your country and a cost/benefit analysis for your operation.

products. These requirements are also shared by Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, as they are part of the European

If your potential incomes justify the expenses you may incur, in

Free Trade Association (EFTA). The EU bases its seafood import

terms of infrastructure upgrades, knowledge and capacity building:

on government-to-government assurances, without the inter-

then go ahead. There will be, however, ongoing costs involved in

vention of any private type certification, or standards such as ISO.

maintaining the access system that should be taken into account.

Therefore, the efforts of producers are conditioned to the good performance of whichever authority (the competent authority – CA) in the exporting country assumes the responsibility of giving the EU the official guarantees it requires regarding compliance and conformity to all the requirements of its legislation.

Since 2010 the EU does not only require food safety/health certification but also catch certification that guarantees that the product does not originate from Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing activities.

Both certifications will have a major impact on exporters, as the EU makes its legislation based on the realities of its members and not of those of third countries.

Many developing countries have found that compliance with these obligations is complex, costly and requires a level of mobilisation of resources that is generally not available to them. Compliance and understanding of the required system of official assurances is paramount to accessing the EU market, and it requires an equal amount of effort by the government authorities and the private sector of the exporting countries.

8

l  EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

3. Health certification.

3.1 The basics.

Once the equivalency is established and the country “authorised”, exports can then access the market as long as the lots are ac-

There are currently 100 countries authorised for exporting fish

companied by a health certificate emitted by the CA of the country

and fishery products to the EU, of which 15 have authorisation for

of origin.

live bivalve molluscs.2 The European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO) is responsible for food safety in the EU. The import rules for fishery

3.2 The health certificate.

products seek to guarantee that all imports fulfil the same high standards as products from the EU Member States, with respect

Seafood products exported to the EU must be accompanied by a

to hygiene and consumer safety and, if relevant, also to the animal

health certificate emitted by the CA of the country of origin.7 This

health status.

certificate is the official document between the exporting country and the EU that provides the official guarantees required. As the

Although cataloguing all what the EU requirements to accept

format and content of the certificate are to be respected, its Public

seafood from a non-member country is beyond the scope of this publication3, it is safe to say that the exporting country regulatory

Health Attestation is a great tool to understand the requirements.

system should correspond (or be equal) to what is established

“I, the undersigned, declare that I am aware of the relevant provi-

for the EU Member Countries by Regulations (EC) No. 178/2002,

sions of Regulations (EC) No. 178/2002, (EC) No. 852/2004, (EC)

(EC) No. 882/2004, and (EC) No. 854/2004. The EU requires that

No. 853/2004 and (EC) No. 854/2004 and certify that the fishery

the official guarantees in terms of compliance of seafood exports from a third country4 should be given by a competent authority

products described above were produced in accordance with those requirements, in particular that they:

(CA) which means the “central authority of a State competent for the organisation of official control”5 in terms of food safety, prod-

• come from (an) establishment(s) implementing a programme

uction standards and others, as specified for seafood in the relevant

based on the HACCP principles in accordance with Regulations

EU legislation. It emphasises that: “The competent authorities for

(EC) No. 852/2004;

performing official controls should meet a number of operational criteria so as to ensure their impartiality and effectiveness”.6

• have been caught and handled on board vessels, landed, handled and where appropriate prepared, processed, frozen

The CA has to comply with a lengthy series of requirements, but

and thawed hygienically in compliance with the requirements

roughly summarised, the CA needs to assure compliance with

laid down in Section VIII, Chapters I to IV of Annex III to Regula-

three types of obligations:

tion (EC) No. 853/2004;

• Obligations of resources: i.e. instruments of production, condi-

• satisfy the health standards laid down in Section VIII, Chapter

tions of handling/processing, Hazard Analysis Critical Control

V of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 and the criteria

Point (HACCP) and prerequisite programmes, traceability, etc.

laid down in Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs;

• Obligations of results: i.e. safety levels of the products (e.g. histamine, contaminants, microbiological levels), etc.

• have been packaged, stored and transported in compliance with Section VIII, Chapters VI to VIII of Annex III to Regulation (EC)

• Obligations of control: i.e. regulatory verification effectively imple-

No. 853/2004;

mented by the CA, data storage and management, administrative procedures, legal support, strict control of product certification, etc.

• have been marked in accordance with Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004; • the guarantees covering live animals and products thereof, if

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l

9

from aquaculture origin, provided by the residue plans submitted in accordance with Directive 96/23/EC, and in particular Article 29 thereof, are fulfilled;

3.3 Requirements for food business operators.

Assuming that the country is on the list of approved countries, the

• have satisfactorily undergone the official controls laid down in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004.”

CA is then responsible to approve food business operators (FBOs) to export to the EU. As exporting to the EU is not compulsory, it is the establishment’s decision to seek “approval” in terms of the EU

The first part of the attestation implies the need of a certifier

requirements, beyond the domestic ones. The CA’s assessment of

whose duty relies on the body responsible for official guarantees,

the FBO’s compliance with the EU standards defines the approval

which, as mentioned before, is the role of the CA.

(or not), by assigning them a unique identification code.

3.2.1 The Food and Veterinary Office

3.3.1 Approved establishments

As part of the market access conditions, EU experts from the

All establishments in the capture or aquaculture production chain

Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) assess the equivalency of an

(hatcheries, farms, vessels, plants, cool stores, etc.) must be

exporting country’s seafood safety regime and ascertains the

approved by the CA regarding the EU requirements, in order for

conditions required to be met for seafood from that country.

their product to be considered “eligible” for the EU. The list of approved establishments in the progression from “raw material

The FVO determines the status of compliance of the CA in terms

to product” is maintained by the CA and represents all the FBOs

of the required official guarantees with inspection missions, and

in the production chain that are allowed to provide to companies

they are the basis for establishing confidence between the EU

that export directly to the EU. The establishments at the end of the

Commission and the CA of the exporting country.

chain (those that export directly to the EU) are to be included on a list of establishments authorised to receive a health certificate for

All inspection visit reports are publicly available and published on the FVO website.8 They contain findings, references and (if neces-

their products. This list can include vessels, plants or cool stores

sary) recommendations to facilitate compliance.

for further processing and then to the EU).

Hence, seafood can be exported to the EU only from:

These establishments are given a unique identification code,

• Authorised countries

usually known as the “EU number”. The CA sends the EC a list of authorised establishments9, with the guarantee that they have

as long as they export directly to the EU (or to another third country

been inspected and deemed to comply with the specific hygi• Approved vessels and establishments (e.g. processing plants, freezer or factory)

ene rules, which correspond to the type of product processed.

Therefore, any changes or updates in this list need to be communicated to the EC immediately. The approval and listing is not

• Vessels, cool stores – generally called Food Business ­Operators

a “one off” event, it is based upon continuous compliance by the establishments. If the level of compliance becomes so low that the

• Approved aquaculture establishments and areas

CA is unable to provide the required official guarantees, then the establishment can be suspended or removed from the list. When this happens, the establishment loses the right to export to the EU and/or provide raw materials and products to “listed” establishments.

10 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

Staff at a tuna cannery in the Philippines

3.3.1.1 Requirements for the establishments

3.3.2 Conditions of operators along the production chain

As discussed, the CA certifies compliance to a series of require-

As mentioned, all the operators in the value chain need to be in

ments, which are listed in the public health attestation of the

compliance and under the control of the CA. These requirements

certificate. The first requirement is that:

are evident in the following statement:

• “(the products) come from (an) establishment(s) implementing a

• “(the products) have been caught and handled on board vessels,

programme based on the HACCP principles in accordance with

landed, handled and where appropriate prepared, processed,

Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004”

frozen and thawed, hygienically in compliance with the requirements laid down in Section VIII, Chapters I to IV of Annex III to

This booklet will not expand on HACCP any further as there is

Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004”

enough information on the subject worldwide. In general, at this stage no food exporter should be processing food if they do not

The statement also provides the specific set of references in the

have a fully functional HACCP plan.

legislation that apply directly to operators, namely Section VIII, Chapters I to IV of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004.

These chapters define the key requirements in terms of hygiene.

They are not more difficult to comply with than any other type of requirements such as those directly based on Codex Ali-­ mentarius.10

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 11

3.4 Requirements for all fishery products.

• “have been packaged, stored and transported in compliance with Section VIII, Chapters VI to VIII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004”

The particular requirements for the products are to be found in the following statements:

In this case, it refers to some very simple principles in terms of packaging and storage, to avoid them becoming a source of

• “satisfy the health standards laid down in Section VIII, Chapter

contamination, and temperature controls (e.g. melting ice for fresh

V of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 and the criteria

products, – 18°C for frozen products and – 9°C for brine frozen

laid down in Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 on microbiological

fish to be canned), and how these same principles need to be

criteria for foodstuffs”

maintained during transport.

This particular paragraph refers to the health standards for most fishery products such as organoleptical evaluation, histamine

• “have been marked in accordance with Section I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004”

levels, parasites, toxins and so on. It also refers to microbiological standards, which are quite minimal and only apply to ready-to-eat

These identification-marking requirements are very basic and

products.

refer mostly to the type of product and establishment of origin identification.

Floating tilapia cage, Betania lake in Colombia 12 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

3.4.1 Specific requirements for aquaculture products Besides all the requirements listed so far, the following statement applies specifically to products originated from aquaculture

Animal health issues.11

practices.

• “the guarantees covering live animals and products thereof, if

As of August 2008, Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October

from aquaculture origin, provided by the residue plans submitted

2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture

in accordance with Directive 96/23/EC, and in particular Article

animals, and products thereof, and on the prevention and

29 thereof, are fulfilled”

control of certain diseases in aquatic animals, became effective. This directive establishes the need of a recog-

Countries wishing to export aquaculture products to the EU need

nised CA that should perform its functions and duties in

a particular approval that is given upon compliance with veterinary

accordance with the general principles laid down for food

residue monitoring requirements as outlined in Articles 29 and 30

safety, in terms of animal health of aquaculture species and

of Council Directive 96/23/EC.

management of infectious or contagious aquatic animal diseases in its territory, particularly the notifiable diseases,

The Directive states the need of submitting a plan setting out

listed by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).

the guarantees that it offers with regard to the monitoring of

This directive requires from third countries great capacity of

the groups of residues and substances referred to in Annex I of

control, including among other obligations, zoning in terms

Council Directive 96/23/EC. The residue-monitoring programme

of diseases, registry of establishments, accreditation of

is submitted by the CA of the country of origin to the EC for initial

laboratories and several requirements. The scope of these

approval and needs to be presented annually for evaluation and

requirements applies to: live fish, their eggs and gametes

renewal. It should be noted that a favourable evaluation is based

intended for aquaculture in the EU, and for raw materials

on the guarantees received on paper. If a subsequent inspection

or products intended for further processing in the EU. How-

carried out by the FVO to assess the implementation of residues

ever, they do not apply to aquaculture products intended

and veterinary medicines controls demonstrates that the paper

for retail. It is important to understand that the responsibility

guarantees cannot be relied upon, the status of the third country

of these requirements may or may not fall under the scope

on the list could be revised.

of the CA for official controls in terms of food safety and traceability.

For further information: http://ec.europa.eu/food/ animal/liveanimals/aquaculture/index_en.htm

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 13

3.5 Official controls.

In terms of documentation:

Official controls are required under the following statement:

• General description of the company, facilities, products and processes.

• “have satisfactorily undergone the official controls laid down in • The description of operations followed.

Annex III Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004” However, under this last paragraph, we should first focus on the official controls done by the CA as per EC

• The documented prerequisite programmes.

854/2004.12 • The HACCP plan.

Some of the key requirements (but not the only ones) are that official control activities are carried out:

• The system to provide guarantees for the product traceability.

• on a regular basis and with a frequency based on risk;

• The documented and formalised withdrawal recall procedures.

• without prior warning (as a general rule); • at any stage of production, processing and distribution;

In terms of physical settings, operational conditions, control strate-

• to include imports/exports.

gies concerning the entire production process and the application of all prerequisite programmes by the operator:

Official control activities on the production and placing on the market of fishery products are aimed at assessing compliance by

• The general hygiene conditions of building and surroundings.

the establishments, in particular: • The water supply and water quality management system, aa A regular check on the hygiene conditions of landing and first sale; bb Inspections at regular intervals of vessels and establishments

detailing the internal distribution net, treatment, if any, quality monitoring plan and related records.

• Ice production, internal distribution and quality monitoring.

on land, including fish auctions and wholesale markets, to check, in particular:

• The absence of cross-contamination/air current risks (layout and infrastructure considerations).

(i) where appropriate, whether the conditions for approval are still fulfilled;

• Personnel health and hygiene control (including training).

(ii) whether the fishery products are handled correctly;

• Sanitary filtering of personnel arrangements, toilets and dressing facilities.

(iii) compliance with hygiene and temperature requirements; • Facilities and equipment cleaning and sanitation plans (methods, (iv) the cleanliness of establishments, including vessels, their

schedules, chemicals used and approvals).

facilities, equipment and staff hygiene; and • Raw materials’ acceptance criteria and controls (freshness, cc Checks on storage and transport conditions.

In more practical terms, this implies that the establishments along the value chain will be “inspected” or “verified” by the CA against,

temperature, transport, lot identification).

• Specifications for other inputs as ingredients, additives or packaging.

for example, the requirements detailed the requirements detailed as follows.13

14 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

• Waste disposal system.

• Labelling system and lot codes, providing effective traceability.

• Pest control plan. Control of insects, rodents and other undesirable animals.

• Equipment and facilities preventive maintenance plan.

In terms of characteristics of the products, the official controls are to include at least the following regulatory elements, as described in the EC Directives: • Random organoleptic checks must be carried out at all stages of production, processing and distribution.

• When the organoleptic examination reveals any doubt as to the freshness of the fishery products, samples may be subjected to laboratory tests to determine the levels of total volatile basic nitrogen (TVB-N) and trimethylamine nitrogen (TMA-N).

• Random testing for histamine is to be carried out to verify compliance with the permitted levels laid down under Community legislation.

• Monitoring arrangements are to be set up to control the levels of residues and contaminants in accordance with Community legislation.

• Where necessary, microbiological checks are to be performed in accordance with the relevant rules and criteria laid down under Community legislation.

• Random testing is to take place to verify compliance with Community legislation on parasites.

• Checks are to take place to ensure that the following fishery products are not placed on the market: -- poisonous fish of the following families: Tetraodontidae, Molidae, Diodontidae and Canthigasteridae; -- fishery products containing biotoxins such as Ciguatera or other toxins dangerous to human health.14

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 15

3.5.1 Signing the certificate The above-discussed issues are what the health certificate im-

The nature of the official controls implies that all elements in the production chain15 need to be approved by the CA. This criti-

plies. When the CA signs the health certificate, it becomes official

cal issue has important ramifications, as the different stages of

evidence that the establishments, operators, raw materials and

production may be under different central or regional authorities.

products in the value chain comply with the requirements as listed

In any case, the various “sub CAs”, and/or the Central CA need to

in the public health attestations. Therefore, the health certificate

act as one in terms of the offering of official guarantees to the EU.

must provide an accurate description of the identity of the ap-

If a country has four different authorities dealing with the fisheries

proved processor of the goods, the type of fish being shipped, the

production chain, this cannot be used as an excuse for noncom-

quantity of product being shipped, and the final destination of the

pliance, as mechanisms should be enacted for coordinated official

goods.

controls. Good coordination is fundamental in order for certification to be meaningful, as the certification process should be

3.5.2 Certification and eligibility

centralised, although the fishery operators and the CA’s inspection

A very important criterion not really obvious on the certificate per

activities tend to be geographically fragmented.

se, is the issue of eligibility of products and raw materials as a consequence of official controls over the production chain and traceability.

Riverside fish market, Colombia

16 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

Good IT practices are increasingly the norm in terms of proving

A copy of the import certificate, or original export certificate, must

traceability, inspection results and certification of food products. In

be available on request.

particular, the design and maintenance of proper database structures enhancing the information sharing and integration be-

3.5.4 Laboratories to be used for official controls

tween the CAs can be very important to provide some consistency

For an analytical result to have “official” validity, it must come from

in the certification process. Whoever signs the certificate needs to have the capacity to assure that the product certified has been

a laboratory accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 for those parameters to be analysed. The standard specifies the general requirements

under officially controlled conditions in officially controlled estab-

for the competence to carry out tests and/or calibrations; it covers

lishments from origin to export. If the harvesting of raw materials

management and technical issues, and the key objective is to

or any other production stages were performed in a non-compliant or non-verified16 establishment, then that raw material or prod-

assure the accuracy and quality of the results. The accreditation

uct is not eligible for export to the EU, hence it cannot receive a

the results, and as a result “approve” the laboratory for it results to

certificate. The fact alone that a product has been processed at

be considered “official”. As a consequence the status of “appro-

an establishment with an “EU number” does not guarantee its

ved” can only be maintained as long as the laboratory holds the

eligibility to the EU market.

accreditation.

is what allows the CA to “trust” the impartiality and accuracy of

3.5.3 Traceability

These requirements apply equally to government and private

The CA should verify the efficiency of a traceability system adopted

laboratories, in fact, private sector laboratories are increasingly

by an operator. The principle is “one step backwards, one step for-

becoming more used worldwide for regulatory purposes.

wards”. The operator should be able to show from where and whom does it come from, what is done with it and whom is it given to.

3.5.3.1 Separation and identification of non-EU eligible products If a company listed for the EU holds products that are not eligible by origin (i.e. a non-approved vessel) or conditions (approved but in non-compliance), then the operator must ensure the physical separation of EU-eligible from ineligible seafood products for the EU. Where any assumed EU-eligible seafood products cannot be distinguished between ineligible seafood products, then the former are deemed to be ineligible and must be dealt with accordingly.

3.5.3.2 Products with imported raw materials Based on the principle of official controls, EU health certificates for seafood products exported to the EU that are derived wholly or partly from raw material products must: • have originated from a third country eligible to export the animal product to the EU; • have been derived from foreign premises eligible to export to the EU, (including vessels); • be eligible to be exported to the EU.

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 17

3.6 Border Inspection Posts.

3.6.1 Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed

Imports of seafood from non-EU countries must enter the EU via

The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)18 is a tool that the EU uses to enable the quick and effective exchange of

an EC-approved Border Inspection Post (BIP) under the authority

information between Member States and the Commission when

of an official veterinarian.

risks to human health are detected in the food and feed chain.

RASFF provides an around-the-clock-service to ensure that

At the BIP, the the consignments are subject to three types of

urgent notifications are sent, received and responded to in the

checks:

shortest time possible.

• A documentary check: it is done systematically; it involves checking the export certificate accompanying the seafood

The CE publishes a weekly summary of the notifications19 under the RASFF system. When a notification pertains to imported

consignments.

products, then the CA of the country of origin has to make a full investigation and report back to the EU on their results and mea-

• An identity check: it is also done systematically; it involves

sures to avoid recurrences.

checking that the data on the export certificate are consistent with the product, which has been imported.

3.7 What about the regulations?

• A physical check: it is done appropriately to the circumstances of the consignment; it involves examining the product, it’s pack-

It is impossible to reference all legislation in one document, or all

aging, the information on the label and the storage conditions.

the requirements in one simple list. There is no way to escape reading regulations, and one has to be aware that they change

The frequency and type of physical checks are determined for

and get updated frequently.

each category of product on the basis of the intrinsic risk and results of checks carried out previously on the same product of

The two following graphic representations resume the key regula-

the same origin, and it can include taking samples for laboratory

tory instruments and their interconnections and can be used as a

testing on a random basis or on the basis of past records. If the

base to understand the systems and to find the required references.

consignment is found to be non-compliant with the EU legislation for any reason, then the BIP notifies the non-compliance to the EU through the internal notification system of the EU called the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). If the product exceeds any regulatory levels or contains non-authorised substances, then it is up to the exporter in the country of origin to decide to get the product back or let it be destroyed.

18 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

Prawn trawler in Belize

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 19

3.7.1 Key regulations for fish and fishery products

20 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

3.7.2 Key regulations for bivalve molluscs

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 21

4. IUU Regulation.

4.1 The basics.

4.1.1 What is IUU fishing?

It is not the intention of this section to define and discuss the

The so-called “EU IUU Regulation”20 is a legal instrument applying

details of IUU fishing and its impact. However, under the scope of

to all vessels engaged in the commercial exploitation of fishery

the IUU Regulation, the concept covers:

resources in all maritime waters, and seeks to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing as much as they are linked to the EC, either through trade to and from its territory or the involvement of EC

• Infringements to rules on management and conservation of fisheries resources in national and international waters;

nationals in IUU fishing activities conducted under any flag.

• Fishing activities in high seas areas covered by a Regional It therefore applies to all types of trade of marine fishery products,

Fisheries Management

processed or not, originating from third country fishing vessels and exported to the Community by any means of transport, and to

Organisation (RFMO) carried out by vessels without nationality or

catches originating from Community fishing vessels to be expor-

registered under a flag state which is a non-contracting or non-

ted to third countries.

cooperating party to the RFMO and in a manner contravening the rules issued by this organisation;

In order to ensure that no products derived from IUU fishing appear on the Community market or on markets supplied from the

• Fishing activities carried out in high seas areas not covered by

Community, the Regulation seeks to ensure full traceability of all

an RFMO in a manner inconsistent with state responsibilities for

marine fishery products traded by means of a catch certification

the conservation of fisheries resources under international law.

scheme.

• Behaviours which shall be qualified as presumed IUU fishing The IUU Regulation also comprises provisions on port state con-

activities.

trol for third country fishing vessels, the identification of IUU EC or third country vessels, non-cooperating third countries and EC

“Under the IUU Regulation, a fishing vessel is notably pre-

nationals involved in IUU fishing under any flag.

sumed to be engaged in IUU fishing activities if it is shown that its operators have carried out activities in contravention with the

The provisions are complemented by a mutual assistance system

conservation and management measures applicable in the area

to facilitate exchange of information between the authorities in

concerned, such as fishing without a valid licence, in a closed

third countries, EU Member States, the EC and a Community

area, beyond a closed depth or during a closed season, or by

Alert System, which is specifically designed to focus verification

using prohibited gear, as well as the failure to fulfil reporting

activities towards situations at risk.

obligations, falsifying its identity, or obstructing the work of inspectors.”

In this respect, the IUU Regulation is based on the responsibility and commitments of third countries, and it is funded on the applicable national and/or international conservation and management measures; therefore, it does not introduce any new conservation or management measures.

22 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

The following figure illustrates some examples of vessels in opera-

In very general terms, within a legal framework these are the

tion that are involved in IUU fishing. Either they are not licensed to

questions that need to be answered to establish whether fish is

fish in the territorial waters of the countries A and B or the RFMO,

legal or not: Who caught it? Where was it caught? How much

or they are fishing in closed areas, or with prohibited gear, or

was caught? When was it caught? How was it caught? – as is illustrated below. 21 The CA needs to back up these questions with

although they have a license, do not report their catches.

a legal framework.

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 23

The answers to these questions must be verifiable in relation to

The CA, in turn, has a series of “programmes” or tools within their

the fisheries management framework of the harvesting vessel’s

scheme of Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) of fishing

flag state and subject to applicable laws and international conser-

activities (e.g. fishing permits, fisheries observers, inspectors, VMS22, landing controls, etc.) that allow them to validate the accu-

vation and management measures.

racy of the information in the certificate.

The “operating system” of this certification is based on the capacity of the fisheries AC of the vessel’s flag state to give official assurances about the existence and “legality” of the answers to these questions.

The fish was caught...

By whom?

Where?

In what quantity?

When?

How?

Primarily concerned with vessel ID & fishing ground d:

e lat u reg d: un / rte l o a g rep : Ille Un ce n a li : mp o ce C n e i Sc

Primarily concerned with catch quantity, perhaps closure period and gear type

All data types are relevant Primarily concerned with area, quantity, season

4.2 How does the catch certificate

operate?

Validated catch certificates must accompany all marine fishery products traded with the EU, including processed products. The scheme is inspired by existing systems of certification adopted by RFMOs, which have proven to be the most effective.

It is up to the exporter to request a catch certificate for catches that are to be traded to the EU, complete it and transmit it to the competent flag state authority for validation. The EC importer must ensure that the consignment to be imported is accompanied by a validated catch certificate transmitted by the exporter prior to 24 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

the importation to the EU. Regarding the implementation (and as foreseen in the IUU Regulation), the EC has adopted an Imple-

4.2.1.1 Indirect importation without processing in another third country

menting Regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1010/2009

In order to ensure full traceability, the certification scheme also

of 22 October 2009) laying down technical details in some of the

applies to situations where the fishery products are imported from

following areas:

another country than the flag state. As a result, products which are transported to another third country before reaching the Commu-

• Prior notification of landings, transhipments and consignments (Articles 1, 2);

nity must also be accompanied by a validated catch certificate and documented evidence that the products did not undergo any operations other than unloading, reloading or any operation desig-

• Landing and transhipment declarations (Article 3);

nated to preserve them in a good and genuine condition.

• Benchmark criteria for port inspections (Articles 4, 5);

Such documented evidence may consist of:

• Simplified catch certification scheme for fishery products with

• a single transport document, covering the passage from the flag

specific characteristics (i.e. catches obtained by small fishing

state to the Community through that third country (of indirect

vessels) (Article 6);

importation), or;

• List of recognised catch documentation schemes in Regional Fisheries Management; • Deadlines for the submission of catch certificates (Article 8);

• a document issued by the authorities in that third country competent for monitoring such activities mentioning: -- the dates of unloading/reloading; -- names of the ships or other means of transport; and

• Risk management criteria for verifications related to catch certificates (Articles 31, 32); • Administrative cooperation with third countries concerning catch certificates (Article 33).

-- the conditions in which the products remained unchanged in that third country until re-export to the Community, or; • where appropriate, the re-export certificate established by an RFMO catch documentation scheme recognised in accordance with Article 13 of the IUU Regulation.

4.2.1 Trade flows The catch certification scheme applies to all fishery products imports, exports and re-exports to and from the Community,

4.2.1.2 Indirect importation with prior processing in another third country

irrespective of the means of transport (fishing vessel, other vessel,

Where products are processed in a country other than the flag

air or land transportation).

state, the importer in the Community shall submit a statement established by the processing plant in the other third country,

Some products, however, are excluded from the scope of the IUU

provided in Annex IV of the IUU Regulation.

Regulation. These are very few and relate to freshwater species, marine species by products and some invertebrates. A complete

The statement must give an exact description of the products and

list is available in the Annex 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 1010/2009.23

must indicate that the products originated from catches accompa-

There is no minimum weight below which samples are exempted

nied by a catch certificate. A copy of those catch certificates must

from the Regulation.

be attached to this statement. The competent authorities in the processing state must endorse the statement.

N.B: Freezing is not regarded as processing, but rather preservation. However, other conservation methods, such as drying, salting or smoking are regarded as processing, since the structure of the product is significantly changed by such treatments.

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 25

5. The relationship between health certification and IUU certification.

Purse seiners in Southern Chile Both regimes are as different as the work scope of a Seafood

The fact that a health certificate is issued for supplies from an ap-

Safety Inspector and a Compliance Fisheries Officer.

proved establishment or vessel or, in addition, an origin certificate, does not infer that the fishery products concerned comply with

The existence of a health certificate is thus not relevant for the

conservation and management rules.

purpose of the validation of a catch certificate, which shall rely only on compliance with conservation and management rules.

However, it is important to note that the different documents (catch

Adversely, the catch certificates used in accordance with the IUU

certificates, health certificates, certificates of origin) cannot con-

Regulation will not be substitutes for health certificates and/or

tain discordant information.

certificates of origin.

26 l  EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

5.1 Comparative table.

The key differences between the two types of certication can be found in the following table: Sanitary certification

Catch certification

Aim

Protect the health of the European Consumers (and aquatic fauna in the case of live fish).

Avoid the importation of fisheries products obtained from IUU fishing.

Scope

Fish and fishery products traded to EU Member countries from “authorised” countries.

All fishing vessels under any flag in all maritime waters, and all processed and unprocessed marine fishery products, traded to or from the EC (and EU nationals operating under any flag).

General responsible

Authorised exporting country. The country must be in the list of “authorised” countries based on legal framework and the “competency” of the CA.

Flag state of the harvesting vessel (and/or an RFMO if the vessel/flag country is participant of a catch certification scheme recognised as compliant with the applicable regulation).

Applicable EU regulations

Various, most notably Regs, (EC)178/2002, 852/2004, 853/2004, 854/2004, 2073/2005, etc.

Effective since 1/1/2006 (prior was a similar system since 1993).

The regulation Reg (EC) No. 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing and its Implementing Regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1010/2009 of 22 October 2009).

Body in charge at origin

Seafood safety CA varies depending on the country, it can be M. Health, M. Fisheries, M. Agriculture, Food Safety Authority, etc.

Generally, it is the Fisheries Authority of the flag country of the vessel. It can be M. Fisheries, a Fisheries Institute, or Coast Guard, Marine, etc.

Possibility of a split system?

Yes, this is done by many countries.

Not contemplated. Either the flag country controls IUU fishing activities of its vessels or it doesn’t.

Very specific, done by the CA, and an officer of the CA of the country of processing provides official guarantees that the consignment was dealt with as per the EU regulations. Any changes in the certificate form, or inaccurate information will result in detention. The language of the certificate is the one of the BIP of entry in the Community.

As per the model in the regulation. The master of the fishing vessel at landing should raise it, and the official CA of the flag state shall validate it, or an RFMO if applicable.

On product arrival at the Border Inspection Post.

Either in paper by the importer or e-cert and under the EU TRACES system.

By the importer on arrival (not specified where).

In case of direct landings in EU ports 3 days prior notice.

(One regulatory system for products to the EU, and one for the rest?)

Contents of the certificate

Presentation of the certificate

The validation must certify that the catch was made in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and international conservation and management measures.

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 27

Sanitary certification

Catch certification

Body in charge at the EU

Initially, the Border Inspection Post of the ports of entry at the EU under the umbrella of DG SANCO, which holds the ultimate responsibility (authorises countries, sends FVO inspections, etc.)

The fisheries authority at the entry port in the EU. This may or may not be the BIP. No centralised body as yet.

Status of the operator

The operator must appear in a list of authorised establishments (EU#). The value chain from the vessels to him needs to be “approved” by the CA in regards of the EU requirements.

No list of approved vessels. Products of vessels in a list of IUU vessels (either by the EU or by RFMOs) are not allowed access.

Role of the fishing vessel

The fishing vessel is one element of the responsibilities of the CA, it has to be “approved” in terms of its hygienic conditions.

The fishing vessel is the “key” element of the certification scheme.

Role of the RFMO

None.

If it has a certification scheme (CCSBT, for example), it could be the body that validates the certificates.

Direct importation

The CA of the country where the product was last processed must emit the health certificate. In the case of factory vessels landing directly, the vessel needs to be “approved” by the CA of the country of origin.

The official CA of the flag state must validate the certificate, or a RFMO is applicable.

Responsibility of the processing country. Technically, the product does not “enter” the country where it is transported; if the product is in any way “transformed“, this scenario does not apply.

The product must be accompanied by a validated catch certificate (by the CA of the flag state); and there should be documentary evidence that the consignment remained under the surveillance of the CA and did not undergo processing.

(imported from the production country or the flag State)

Indirect importation (imported from another country than the flag state)

Transport only scenario (transhipment, transit or ­temporary warehousing)

Indirect importation (imported from another country than the flag state)

Processing scenario

This evidence should be in the form of either a) a single transport document, or b) a certificate from the CA of the state of export, which describes products and indicates dates of unloading/loading and identifies the vessels/transport means.

Responsibility of the exporting country. The exporter must appear in a list of authorised establishments (EU#) from the exporting country.

The raw materials/original product must originate from an “approved” establishment of an authorised country.

The health certificate must refer to the “imported raw material” and the original health certificate should be kept.

28 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

a) The consignment should be accompanied by the catch certificate validated by the flag state (or a copy in cases where only a partial catch has been used in the consignment). b) The consignment is accompanied by a statement from the processor and endorsed by the CA (as per the specific form of the regulation) which, i) describes and quantifies the unprocessed and processed products, and ii) states that the consignment has been processed from catches referred to on the certificate.

Sanitary certification

Catch certification

Same as above.

In both above cases (either transport or processing in country other than flag state), an alternative condition is that the consignment be accompanied by a re-export certificate validated under a catch documentation scheme of an RFMO, provided that the state of export has fulfilled notification requirements for validation of reexport certificates. This only applies to the relevant species (e.g. a few tunas or toothfish, ICCAT, CCSBT).

Consequences of noncompliance

Product detained. Rapid Alerts Systems entry, report from the country of origin CA, product returned or destroyed.

Refusal of importation. AC of MC may confiscate and destroy, dispose of or sell for charity. If the flag state refuses/fails to take corrective measures against the vessel, it could be potentially listed as an IUU vessel. Flag state potentially listed as a non-cooperating country.

Alert systems

The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) is a tool used for exchange of information between MS and the Commission when risks to human health are detected in the food and feed chain.

A Community alert system will be created to share information on operators and fishing vessels which are presumed to carry out IUU activities.

European Union nationals

Nothing in the legislation.

Nationals of the EC shall neither support nor engage in IUU activities and the EC Member State concerned shall cooperate with the relevant third country in order to identify nationals supporting or engaging in IUU activities.

Support for developing countries

Over 15 years of technical assistance by various bodies inside and outside the EC.

The EC is cooperating administratively with third countries in the implementation of this regulation.

Indirect importation (imported from another country than the flag state)

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling   l 29

6. Eco-Labelling.

6.1 The basics.

labelled products (i.e. 40% of the total sourced). In many European countries, supermarkets are dominant in the retail of fish and

Many governments have introduced at national, regional and

seafood products. Besides requiring a stable supply chain of good

international levels (with different degrees of success and capac-

quality and safe products, they are also requiring their suppliers

ity), diverse policies and mechanisms to ensure the sustainability

to prove that those products have been sourced ethically. Eco-la-

of fish stocks and the best environmental practices in aquaculture.

belled products provide this “proof” for the retailers. Particularly in

In addition to the official measures, the private sector has also in-

Central and Northern Europe, this development is very apparent;

troduced market-based initiatives to support the same objectives.

the population is relatively environmentally aware, and there is an active civil society. Consumption patterns are based on a limited

Eco-labels are one of these initiatives; they are designed to influ-

range of traditional fish products, and consumers have the habit of

ence the purchasing decisions of consumers and the procurement

purchasing processed/packaged fish and seafood from super-

policies of retailers selling seafood products, in order to reward

markets that lend themselves to the attachment of a label at the

producers involved in responsible fishing practices and aquacul-

point of sale. As a consequence, the market share of eco-labelled

ture practices leading towards sustainable use of natural

products is growing rapidly.

resources.

Eco-labels are seals of approval given to products that are

6.3 Coverage and certification.

considered to have lesser impact on the environment than other products in the same market segment.24 An eco-label is a logo or label placed on a product, therefore providing information that links the product to the production process, at the moment the consumer or retailer makes a buying decision. Organisations developing and managing an eco-label set a series of standards which applicants hoping to use the logo will be assessed. If found to be in compliance, they are certified in due course.

The parent organisation also promotes the significance of the label to consumers to ensure appreciation and demand for their branded products. Accreditation, in this context, is the procedure by which certifiers and auditors are accredited as being competent to carry out the assessments and certification against the standards specific to each eco-label.

There is a lot of variety in terms of “what” is covered by the various

6.2 Why are they becoming important for the EU market?

Eco-Labelling schemes beyond an initial division, in between those that deal with capture fisheries and aquaculture. Some of the specific requirements of each eco-label scheme will be discussed later; however, it is important to point out that they do not only

Retailers see good potential in eco-labels as a marketing tool, as

subscribe to environmental matters, but they extend to biotechno-

there is growing demand for ethical products and as an assurance

logy, animal welfare, social responsibility and economic develop-

against disapproving pressure from environmental groups and in

ment issues. In terms of their certification methodology, there is

the media. Eco-labelled products are becoming part of many

also variability, however, which can be categorised as:

retailers’ corporate social responsibility policies, and as consequence, some firms are setting procurement targets for eco-

• First party labelling schemes: established by individual companies, based on their own product standards, with compliance “self declared”.

30 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

• Second party labelling schemes: established by industry associations for their members’ products. Compliance is verified

• Improved management of fisheries resources and resulting guarantees of future production potential

through internal audit procedures or by employing external certifying companies as auditors (such as Bureau Veritas, SGS, etc.).

• Third party labelling schemes: usually developed by a body

• Increased earnings through an assumed price premium for ecolabelled fish In contrast, costs identified included:

independent of producers, distributors and sellers of the labelled products. The label is typically licensed to a producer. The “chain

• Actual costs of certification, experts‘ fees, etc.

of custody” is tracked to ensure that the labelled product is in fact derived from the certified product. An independent, thirdparty certifier conducts the audits.

• Compliance costs related to adjusted management practices, data collection and record keeping, which is additional to existing government administrative requirements

The independence of certification is seen as a proxy for credibility: being audited by an independent body offers a more credible

• Costs related to potential adjustments in fisheries management

judgment than a self-assessment. The proliferation and variety of

(e.g. there might be a recommendation that catch limits are

eco-labels has led to calls for international guidance in the area. In

reduced to meet sustainability criteria)

response, FAO has produced the “Guidelines for the Eco-Labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries”25 in 2005, and will soon publish the “Guidelines for Aquaculture

The report also identified socio-economic issues in relation to Eco-Labelling schemes, such as:

Certification”.26 • Transparency and participation: standards are set by ‘outsiders’

6.4 Producers: costs and benefits.

and imposed on fishers.

• Legitimacy: Eco-Labelling schemes are typically developed and

Even though a range of costs and benefits has been claimed for

controlled by private sector operators or NGOs; some fishers

producers signing up to an Eco-Labelling scheme, there has not

would prefer to participate in a public scheme which they consi-

been much in-depth analysis of the economics of producers op-

der has more legitimacy and some public accountability.

erating in fisheries that have gained eco-certifications. As a result, there is a relative dearth of empirical evidence as to the actual costs and benefits.

• Applicability: concerns have been raised that current schemes do not lend themselves to multi-species or artisanal fisheries found in developing countries, and they do not take in considera-

In late 2008, a Globefish study27 analysed the cost benefits based on some initial observations, experiences to date and the claims made by the eco-label schemes. It identified these potential benefits: • Access to new markets

tion their special needs.

• Impacts on trade: eco-labels might be used as a barrier to trade by importing countries and become “back door” protectionism.

• Governance: certification and labelling depends on the effective public management of marine resources. Poor institutional

• Consolidation or expansion of market share in existing markets

infrastructures pose a barrier to the certification of fisheries in those jurisdictions.

• Greater credibility vis-à-vis retail buyers • Obligatority: fears that schemes that are initially voluntary will • Potential for more value-added products including through prod-

eventually become mandatory.

uct differentiation (niche markets for environmentally friendly products) EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 31

6.4.1 Price premium

6.5 Consumers’ perspective.

Whereas extracting information about prices is difficult due to commercial sensitivities, there does not seem to be much

The “explosion” of fish-related labels and certification, in particular

evidence of a price premium as a result of the certification of

related to farmed fish, has created what has been described as

products. Pricing is a function of various factors, and an eco-label

“eco-label noise”. Consumers may find the wealth of different mes-

is arguably not the most significant. Even though most retailers

sages confusing; they increasingly put their faith in trusted retai-

are unwilling to divulge information about pricing, there does not

lers to define the boundaries of their ethical purchasing decisions.

appear to be a price premium attached to eco-labelled products at a retail level either.

For example: The NZ Hoki fishery managed under an internationally peer

Most returns, to both retailers and processors, appear to be more

review Quota Management System (QMS) has been

indirect and related to reputation and brand value.

certified by MSC since 2001, nevertheless, in 2010 Greenpeace added it to its seafood red list30, as Greenpeace

For example:

believes “the stocks of hoki are now considered to be

The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council, SeaFIC, ​

overfished”.

concluded that, “It is difficult to identify any premium for hoki28 arising from certification.” SeaFIC29 argues that the industry should not even expect a price premium for

Retailers and brand owners filter the various messages and

certification noting that: “No plausible case can be made ​

through “choice editing” decide which standards or labels to

for a premium for ‘sustainable seafood’. I anything, a well

include in their procurement and marketing strategies. Therefore,

managed fishery should also be a cheaper fishery to

the Eco-Labelling scene is dynamic; some schemes have merged,

harvest as the fish should be more abundant and easier to

others will do so in years to come, and some may disappear.

catch!”

Mutual recognition among schemes is being tested among the smaller players as an alternative in order to maintain market presence, by avoiding the polarisation of labels and products.

6.4.2 Increased market share Research in the field agrees that it is too early to tell whether

Nevertheless, by their nature, the schemes are always going to be

Eco-Labelling will become the new norm or “minimum standard”

seen as incomplete by some groups and as excessive by others.

and what implications that would have for market access. There are some indications that fisheries operators feel compelled to become certified when their competitors do.

It is expected, however, that as certification becomes more

6.6 Eco-labels in developing

countries.

prevalent, any potential market share advantage will diminish and

Although the driving force for eco-labelled products is in the devel-

the usual factors such as price, presentation and brand loyalty will

oped countries, the trend towards eco-labels is affecting producing

define the point of sale choices for consumers.

developing countries on various fronts.

To date, not many operations in developing countries have been certified as part of an Eco-Labelling scheme. This is perhaps due to three main factors: • the lack of clear and defined economic imperatives • the high costs of certification

32 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

Artisanal fishermen in Papua New Guinea • Eco-Labelling schemes do not translate well into the typical con-

• The concentration of Eco-Labelling in certain species that are

ditions of the fisheries and aquaculture environments in devel-

not the main species produced by most developing countries.

oping countries (insufficient fisheries management regimes,

If their competitors with similar or substitutable species are not

data deficiencies, multi-species fisheries, poor environmental

eco-labelled, then there is no need for them to be.

management infrastructure, low levels of governance and transparency, etc)

• The concentration of demand in certain markets: although there is significant demand in pockets of the European and United

6.6.1 Weak economic imperatives

States markets, in other significant markets such as Japan and

Three factors suggest that so far developing countries need not

China there is less eco-sensitivity.

feel that their livelihoods are threatened by the trend towards sustainability certification and in Eco-Labelling schemes: • The current small volumes of eco-labelled products on the market suggesting limited demand to date (albeit growing).

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 33

6.6.2 Certification costs

• Certification is often based on a single species fishery charac-

Even operators in developed countries complain about the high

teristic of developed countries. Developing country fisheries

costs of certification. For developing countries the costs are often

tend to be multi-species, with commercial and artisanal fishers

prohibitive, including the up-front direct costs of the initial assess-

competing for the same stocks.

ment process with reliance on outside experts, as well as any subsequent costs relating to upgrading of gear, facilities, methods

• In some cases, literacy is also an issue.

or management systems. Where there are multiple stakeholders, deciding who pays and how much, can also be problematic. As

These problems have been recognised by the Marine Stewardship

discussed above, there is no guarantee of a price premium to off-

Council (MSC), one of the best-known Eco-Labelling schemes.

set these costs. Where there are catch limits imposed, reductions

They have developed new methods to enable certifiers to assess

in income and some unemployment might be other indirect costs

small and data-poor fisheries against the MSC standard (MSC

of certification.

Risk-Based Framework), in recognition that many developing country fisheries do not have the detailed scientific data needed

6.6.3 Weak institutional capabilities

to demonstrate a conclusive case for their sustainability, but may

Several commentators have raised serious concerns about the

nonetheless be able to demonstrate they are operating sustain-

institutional ability of many developing countries, as current Eco-

ably and can make the case for certification.

Labelling fisheries and aquaculture schemes require resources and capabilities that are not yet fully available in many developing

As modern aquaculture is becoming an industrial means of food

country scenarios.

production, it can lead to detrimental impacts on the environment and affected communities. In many developing countries there

Below are some of the difficulties encountered:

are constraints on the institutional capacity required to deal with issues, such as:

• There is lack of an effective fisheries management regime, which in practice is a prerequisite for certification. Some oper-

• appropriate site selection, construction and operation of small-

ate under open access arrangements, with weak official controls

and large-scale aquaculture operations that minimise environ-

over catch limits if and when they exist.

mental impacts, such as water and soil deterioration and pollution, disturbance and/or destruction of aquatic and terrestrial

• There is a lack of accurate data information on existing stocks.

habitats, introduction of alien species and disease outbreaks;

Certification requires science-based stock assessments for which there is often poor infrastructure (systems and human resources).

• integration with fisheries policies as the production of high-value carnivorous fish and crustaceans is often associated with a net loss of aquatic protein resources, as the species being cultivated

• There is also inadequate data on catch volumes.

requires considerable volumes of fishmeal and fish oil for aquaculture feed. This increases pressure on wild fish populations;

• Small-scale fishers land catch at a multitude of sites for which records are rarely kept.

• resource management and allocation as excessive use can lead to conflicts amongst local stakeholders, especially where water

• Eco-Labelling schemes are generally data-intensive: in developing countries there is often a lack of know-how and a weak tradition of record keeping. This makes any chain of custody certification problematic.

34 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

and land resources are scarce;

• large-scale, industrial aquaculture activities in developing countries can be accompanied by social conflicts with local stakeholders and communities that are negatively affected by such operations without receiving any benefits from them; • aquaculture facilities can employ a large number of workers on farms and in processing plants, potentially placing labour practices and worker rights under public scrutiny.

6.7 What about organic aquaculture?

The market share for organic products is globally on the rise.

This growth, however, is focused on the higher income strata in Western Europe.31 In general, organic fish is perceived to be more

be directly authorised and monitored by the EC and the Member

“natural” and therefore healthier, or even tastier. In some regions

States. This new procedure allows the EU Commission to super-

the emphasis is on local production, in part to reduce food miles

vise and better monitor the import of organic products and the

but also to support regional production. In others, the concept of

control of the organic guarantees. A list of recognised third

organic aquaculture is focused on small, traditional farms only. For

countries can be found in Annex III of the Import Regulation.33

example, in France organic aquaculture certification is limited to 100 tonnes per site. In other cases there is an emphasis on the

Products that are produced and controlled in precisely the same

“Fair Trade” concept involving human and labour rights issues.

manner as in the EU will also have free access to the common market. Control bodies that intend to undertake such controls

6.7.1 EU regulatory framework for organic products

must apply to the EU Commission and be authorised by the Com-

Until recently, there was a lack of specific organic aquaculture

mission and the Member States for this purpose.

regulation for third countries. However, a positive step was taken in this matter since 1 January 2009 when the new EU regulation

However, since production conditions in third countries are usually

(Council Regulation No. 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products)32 went into effect for

very different from those in Europe, it is often not possible to apply

the production, control and labelling of organic products.

also possible to allow similar rules that conform in principle with

exactly the same rules for production or control. Therefore, it is the goals and principles of the organic legislation.

The Council Regulation applies to agricultural products, including aquaculture and yeast, either as living or unprocessed products,

The EU has created an ad hoc portal for its Organic Farming

processed foods, animal feeds, seeds and propagating material.

Policy at: ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ organic/home_en

The basis for the acceptance of EU rules on organic aquaculture is laid in article 15 of the legislation. According to the new legislation, European producers of packaged organic food must use the EU organic logo as of 1 July 2010. The use of the logo on organic foods from third countries is optional.

The distribution of organic products from third countries is only permitted on the common market when they are produced and controlled under the same or equivalent conditions as the EU ones. The “old” procedure for import licences is replaced by a new import regime. Control bodies working in third countries will then EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 35

6.8 Which way to go for Eco Labelling?

In April 2009 a Round Table on Eco-Labelling and Certification in the Fisheries Sector was jointly organised by the OECD Committee for Fisheries and the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 34.

The Round Table brought together representatives from the fishing industry (producers, processors, buyers, retailers) NGOs, EcoLabelling schemes, certification bodies, academia, governments, and relevant international organisations. The alignment of EcoLabelling schemes, or at least some sort of framework against which to judge the quality and credibility of the various fisheries certification schemes in the marketplace, became a recurring theme throughout the Round Table.

A “wish-list” for buyers35 for fish certification schemes was proposed. This list is helpful for producers to choose between EcoLabelling schemes if the need for certification has been established: • Does the eco-label operate to an internationally agreed or harmonised reference, such as the FAO Guidelines for the EcoLabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries (and/or Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification)?

• Is the certification process of the eco-label compliant with relevant international standards (e.g. ISO 6536, ISEAL37)?

• Is the governance and transparency of the organisation/standard robust?

• Does the issuing organisation have credibility (related to above)?

• Is the scheme easily used by industry (e.g. easily understood using simple language)?

• Is it affordable? Does the cost structure incite the market to adopt the standard?

• Is a continuous business improvement process built into the scheme?

• Do its label declarations align to international standards (i.e. ISO 14020 – Environmental labels and declarations)?

36 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

Artisanal fishermen in Sri Lanka

6.9 Key fisheries eco-labels.

As this publication focuses on EU market access, only some European-operated or EU market-oriented standards and certifi-

Different certification schemes certify different things, have

cation programmes with strong market presence in the EU have

different standards, and use different assessment methodologies.

been selected for identification.

There is significant variation between schemes in the scope of the assessments conducted.

Therefore, this is neither an exhaustive list, nor an endorsement of the schemes identified. A detailed benchmarking analysis of the

In terms of their origin, the fisheries schemes can be promoted by:

schemes can be found in Assessment of On-Pack, Wild-Capture Seafood Sustainability Certification Programmes and Seafood

• National and regional governments

Ecolabels (WWF International 2009).38

• Retailers • The fishing industry • NGO-based eco-labels and seafood guides

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 37

6.9.1 Marine Stewardship Council

6.9.2 Friend of the Sea (fisheries)

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) was established in 1997

Friend of the Sea is an Italian-based fisheries and aquaculture

as a joint project between the then largest seafood buyer Unilever

certification scheme promoted by the Earth Island Institute, an

and the international conservation organisation World Wildlife

international independent and not-for-profit humanitarian and envi-

Fund (WWF). The MSC has operated as an independent organi-

ronmental organisation. Friend of the Sea (FOS) was established

sation since 1999. It sets the standard for the eco-label through its

in 2005 and reviews the sustainability of fisheries (and aquacul-

board, supported by a Technical Advisory Board.

ture) production based on published data.

Fishery assessments are conducted by third party certification

The FOS scheme works by approving fisheries/products if: (a) tar-

bodies, which are in turn accredited as competent to perform MSC

get stocks are not overexploited; (b) fisheries use fishing methods

assessments by an accreditation body that is independent of both

which do not impact the seabed; and (c) they generate less than

MSC and the certification bodies. For products to carry the MSC

8% discards (the global average estimated in FAO publications).

eco-label they must meet the MSC standards both for the sustainability of the source fishery and for the integrity of the “chain of

Products/fisheries are assessed against: FAO data on stock

custody” through which the product passes from the fishery to the

status in different fisheries areas; the IUCN red list of endangered

end consumer. The initial audit is valid for five years with annual

species; fishing gear types felt to be harmful to the seabed; IUU

surveillance audits.

and Flags of Convenience; and compliance with TACs, use of the precautionary principle, and national legislation.

The chain of custody requirement is to protect against products from uncertified fisheries carrying the eco-label. There is an

Bureau Veritas or SGS checks the chain of custody (traceability

independent dispute resolution process. Currently 187 fisheries

and documental evidence) and actual fishing method and compli-

around the world are either certified or under assessment. These

ance with legal standards.

fisheries landed over 7 million tonnes of seafood annually – 12% of the global wild harvest for human consumption. The fisheries

There are around 60 capture fisheries products already approved

certified include large- and small-scale fisheries.

under the scheme with certified products sold in 23 countries.

Many of the certified fisheries are of small scale and in developing

The MSC has developed new methods to enable certifiers to

countries.

assess small and data-poor fisheries against the MSC standard (MSC Risk-Based Framework), in recognition that many developing country fisheries do not have the detailed scientific data needed to demonstrate a conclusive case for their sustainability, but may nonetheless be able to demonstrate they are operating sustainably and make the case for certification. www.msc.org

38 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

www.friendofthesea.org

6.9.3 KRAV (fisheries)

6.9.4 Naturland (fisheries)

KRAV is an association that promotes organic farming. It is

Naturland is one of the major certifying organisations for organic

composed of 28 members who are said to represent the interests

produce and it has been one of the pioneering standard organisa-

of producers, traders, processors and consumers in addition

tions for organic aquaculture development.

to protecting the environment and animal welfare. Although the focus of its activities is in Sweden, KRAV supports international

Naturland has developed standards for the production of a wide

activities towards organic farming through its interactions with

range of commodities including fruit, vegetables, honey, livestock

IFOAM and the European Union. KRAV standards cover several

and for forest management. It has a well-developed process of

production sectors including crops, livestock, apiculture and aqua-

certification and accreditation. This includes third party certifi-

culture. Standards are developed and revised by KRAV some-

cation bodies, accreditation bodies and objections procedures,

times following several rounds of comments and are approved

with frequent ISO audits to ensure the accreditation certification

by the KRAV Board of Directors. KRAV standards are applicable

systems meet international requirements.

to farming and all links in the supply chain including distributors, processors and restaurants.

In 2006, Naturland extended its scope to include sustainable inland and marine capture fisheries with the eco-label Naturland

Sustainable fishing standards are created to drive development in

Wildfish.

the fishing industry towards a sustainable fishing and processing.

In 2004, KRAV issued standards for sustainable fishing in the

The Naturland Wildfish assessment includes social and economic

Scandinavian jurisdiction. However, since mid 2010, KRAV will

sustainability in addition to ecological sustainability. One fishery

also accept applications for fish stocks outside Scandinavia.

has been certified under this eco-label in 2009: the Lake Victoria fishery for Nile perch. It is anticipated that this first assessment will

The standards consist of five sets of rules that cover all aspects of

result in further definition and refinement of the Naturland Wildfish

fishing, processing, and sales: Quality assurance, Stock assess-

criteria and methodology.

ment, Fishing vessels, Fishing methods and Landing and processing. These standards were developed for conditions in Scandina-

www.naturland.de/naturlandwildfish.html

via and are neither tested nor intended for other areas.

The KRAV standards also include: requirements concerning fuel used by fishing vessels, the type of motor, the paint used on ships, etc. The environmental and fisheries management dimension focuses more on the equipment and operational impacts (fuel pollution, etc.) than on the actual habitat and marine stock environment. www.krav.se

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 39

6.10 Key aquaculture eco-labels.

Different certification schemes certify different things, have different standards, and use different assessment methodologies.

®

There is significant variation between schemes in the scope of the assessments conducted. Most of the certification programmes available to the aquaculture industry focus on the following issues:

6.10.1 Aquaculture Certification Council The Aquaculture Certification Council (ACC) is a non-govern-

• Food Safety: proper food health and safety measures

mental body established to certify social, environmental and food safety standards at aquaculture facilities throughout the world.

• Food Quality: product quality characteristics

This non-profit, non-member public benefit corporation applies the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA).

• Environment: environmentally sound production processes Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) in the certification system com• Social Responsibility: social accountability within the production process • Animal Welfare: issues related to animal welfare and health

bines site inspections and effluent sampling with sanitary controls, therapeutic controls and traceability.

The GAA has been formed by the aquaculture industry, predominantly by the shrimp sector, to promote sustainable aquaculture

In terms of their origin, the aquaculture schemes can be promoted by:

practices throughout the world. It has developed a Code of Good Practice for marine shrimp farming that has been used as the

• Retailers

basis for BAP for shrimp.

• The aquaculture industry • Governments

The Global Aquaculture Alliance is currently developing additional

• NGOs

standards for other species (fish) that may be included in the BAP-

• Organic certification schemes

Certification programme.

• Fair trade certification schemes The Aquaculture Certification Council currently certifies GAA’s As this publication focuses on EU market access, only some

BAP programme for shrimp hatcheries, farms and processing

European-operated or EU market-oriented standards and certifi-

plants. Independent inspectors who are trained and approved by

cation programmes with strong market presence in the EU have

the ACC conduct inspections and audits of farms and processing

been selected for identification.

plants.

This, however, does not pretend to be an exhaustive list, nor an

gaalliance.org/bap/standards.php

endorsement of the schemes identified.

A detailed benchmarking analysis of the schemes can be found in Benchmarking Study: Certification Programmes for Aquaculture(WWF Switzerland and Norway 2007).39

40 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

6.10.2 Global GAP

6.10.3 Friend of the Sea (aquaculture)

GLOBALGAP (GG), formerly known as EUREPGAP, is a private

Friend of the Sea is an Italian-based fisheries and aquaculture

sector body that sets voluntary standards for the certification of

certification scheme promoted by the Earth Island Institute, an

food products around the globe. EUREPGAP started in 1997 as

international independent and not-for-profit humanitarian and envi-

an initiative by retailers belonging to the Euro-Retailer Produce

ronmental organisation. Friend of the Sea (FOS) was established

Working Group (EUREP). Today GG is an equal partnership of

in 2005 and reviews the sustainability of fisheries (and aquacul-

producers and retailers who wish to establish certification stan-

ture) production based on published data.

dards and procedures for Good Agricultural/Aquaculture Practices (GAP).

The aquaculture certification scheme has been developed by FOS by involving industry stakeholders as well as NGOs and scientific

GG management and normative documents are hosted and

bodies.

owned by FoodPLUS GmbH, a non-profit industry owned and governed organisation. It provides standards and framework for

The certification is based on compliance assessment against

the independent, recognised third party certification of farm production processes based on EN45011 or ISO/IEC Guide 65.

FOS’s criteria for sustainable aquaculture (Approval Criteria for sustainable Aquaculture), which aim to provide a regulatory framework in accordance with the same main criteria of organic

The GG Integrated Aquaculture Assurance Standard is based on

aquaculture standards.

the GG Integrated Farm Assurance Standard (for agriculture) and has a modular composition, which enables farmers to combine

Criteria for Sustainable Aquaculture require, among the others,

multiple products into one single audit. The aim is to ensure integ-

that: an Environmental Impact Assessment or equivalent be run

rity, transparency and harmonisation of global aquaculture stan-

before the development of the plant; the plant is not impacting

dards. The standard includes issues such as worker health, safety

critical habitats, such as mangroves, wetlands, etc.; procedures

and welfare, environmental and animal welfare. GG is a pre-farm

are in place to limit escapes of fish to a negligible level; no use of

gate standard that covers the whole agricultural or aquaculture

GMO and growth hormones; no use of antifouling paints; waste,

production process, including production of feed and juveniles/

water, feed and energy management programmes are in place;

seedlings in hatcheries.

and usage of FOS certified feed (currently for trout, sea bream and sea bass).

GG is a business-to-business tool/certification system and is therefore not directly visible to the end consumer.

FOS has currently over 12 different species and products certified, most of which are sold in European or US retail chains under

www.globalgap.org

private labels. For aquaculture products, the FOS aquaculture standard requires certification by organic standards since the end of 2008. www.friendofthesea.org

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 41

6.10.4 Aquaculture Stewardship Council

6.10.5 Naturland (aquaculture)

The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) was founded in 2009

Naturland is one of the major certifying organisations for organic

by WWF and IDH (Dutch Sustainable Trade Initiative) to manage

produce, and it has been one of the pioneering standard orga-

the global standards for responsible aquaculture, which are under

nisations for organic aquaculture development. Naturland has

development by the Aquaculture Dialogues, a programme of

developed standards for the production of a wide range of commo-

round tables initiated and coordinated by WWF.

dities including fruit, vegetables, honey, livestock and for forest management.

Currently the ASC is in its business development phase. The ASC is expected to be in full operation by mid 2011.

It has a well-developed process of certification and accreditation.

This includes third-party certification bodies, accreditation bodies

The ASC aims to be a global organisation working with aquacul-

and objections procedures, with frequent ISO audits to ensure

ture producers, seafood processors, retail and food service com-

the accreditation certification systems meet international require-

panies, scientists, conservation groups and the public to promote

ments.

the best environmental and social choice in aquaculture products.

The ASC will offer standards for aquaculture and for the seafood

Naturland developed the first species-specific standards in 1995,

chain of custody. The standards are being developed by the Aqua-

starting with carp, followed by salmonids, bivalve molluscs and

culture Dialogues in compliance with the guidelines for standard

shrimp. Compliance to Naturland standards is assessed through

setting established by the International Social and Environmental

annual and occasional random inspections conducted by indepen-

Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL).The certification

dent organisations.

according to these standards will be in the hands of independent, third-party, and accredited certifiers.

To improve the management of organic businesses and ease the process of inspection and certification, Naturland has entered a

Once established, the ASC will develop and launch a consumer-

number of initiatives that use IT solutions. The adoption of e-tools

facing label for responsible aquaculture.

is also said to reduce the cost of inspections.

www.ascworldwide.org

To assist small-scale producers in complying with certification requirements, Naturland also produces extension material on the development of internal inspection systems.

The Naturland Standards for Organic Aquaculture now include specific regulations for a range of aquaculture commodities and for processing of aquaculture products. A number of projects are also being conducted in several countries (e.g. Vietnam, Bangladesh, India) aimed at assisting producers in complying with Naturland standards and them benefiting from implementation of organic aquaculture. www.naturland.de/certifiedorganicaquaculture.html

42 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

6.10.6 Bio Suisse

6.10.7 KRAV (aquaculture)

Bio Suisse, a private-sector organisation, is the federation of

KRAV is an association that promotes organic farming. It consists

Swiss organic farmers. It is an umbrella organisation that counts

of 28 members who are said to represent the interests of prod-

32 organic farmers’ associations among its members, as well as

ucers, traders, processors and consumers in addition to protecting

the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL). Bio Suisse

the environment and animal welfare.

standards cover not only organic farming but also processing and marketing of organic products.

Although the focus of its activities is in Sweden, KRAV supports international activities towards organic farming through its interac-

Conformity to Bio Suisse standards is assessed by inspection

tions with IFOAM and the European Union. KRAV standards cover

bodies authorised by Bio Suisse; they are selected among bodies

several production sectors including crops, livestock, apiculture

that have been accredited by the Swiss accreditation authority.

and aquaculture.

Only businesses with a Swiss partner (e.g. importers) can apply for Bio Suisse certification. Bio Suisse also allows for inspection

Standards are developed and revised by KRAV sometimes

and certification of cooperatives, projects and producer

following several rounds of comments and are approved by the

groups based on criteria set by Naturland, IFOAM and FVO (Farm

KRAV Board of Directors. KRAV standards are applicable to

Verified Organic).

farming and all links in the supply chain including distributors, processors and restaurants.

In 2000, Bio Suisse adopted standards for organic aquaculture.

Standards refer to the farming of organic fish (trout, salmon, carp,

The assessment of conformity to KRAV standards is conducted by

etc.), although approval for shrimp and mussels may also be

an authorised inspection body, which is also authorised to issue

obtained if a number of conditions including compliance with the

certificates on behalf of KRAV, of which there are presently almost

Naturland standards (or equivalent) are met.

50, located in 22 countries across the world.

Bio Suisse certified aquaculture products now include salmon and

The KRAV scheme offers a wide range of labels to differentiate

trout in Europe and pangasius in Vietnam.

products based on the amount of organic material contained, to label production inputs, for export and for wild production.

www.bio-suisse.ch Although KRAV aquaculture standards contain specific parts for salmonids, perch and blue mussels, they can be applied broadly to production in freshwater, brackish water and marine environments and are suitable for carnivores, omnivores and herbivores in all their life cycle stages. www.krav.se

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 43

7. Bibliography.

This publication has drawn views and information from the fol-

IUU catch certification scheme.

lowing publications under the different areas:

Sanitary certification.

• Handbook on the practical application of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported

• How to export seafood to the EU. 2nd edn. Blaha, F. Feb 2009.

and unregulated fishing (The IUU Regulation). Ref: Mare A4/

By ITC (WTO/UNCTAD). Geneva. http://www.intracen.org/tdc/

PS D(2009) A/12880. http:// ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_

Export%20Quality%20Bulletins/EQM84eng.pdf

fishing/info/handbook_original_en.pdf

• Regulatory Alternatives for EU Market Access. Food and Agri-

• Addendum to the first edition of the Handbook on the practical

culture Organization of the United Nations. Blaha, F. 2008. FAO

application of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2008 of 29 Sep-

Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0884b/i0884b02c.pdf

tember 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. http://

• General guidance for third country authorities on procedures to be followed when importing live animals and animal products

ec.europa.eu/fisheries/ cfp/illegal_fishing/info/handbook_addendum_en.pdf

into the EU. SANCO/10063/2007 Rev.2 2009. http://ec.europa. eu/food/animal/liveanimals/guide_thirdcountries_en.pdf

• Technical note – detailed description of the catch certification scheme. http://ec.europa.eu/ fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/info/

• The Impacts of Private Food Safety Standards on the Food

technical_note_en.pdf

Chain and on Public Standard-Setting Processes. Henson, S. and Humphrey, J. FAO/WHO. 2009. ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ CAC/ CAC32/al329Dbe.pdf

• List of Member States and their competent authorities concerning Articles 15(2), 17(8) and 21(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2008. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_ fishing/ info/ms_authorities_en.pdf • Addendum to and amendment of list of competent authorities in Member States http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/ info/addendum_authorities_en.pdf

44 l EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

Eco-Labelling.

Aquaculture • Benchmarking Study on International Aquaculture Certification

Fisheries

Programmes. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Switzerland and Nor-

• Product certification and Eco-Labelling for fisheries sustaina-

way. Zurich and Oslo. 2007. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/

bility. Wessells, C.R. et al. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 422.

benchmarking_study_wwf_aquaculture_standards_new_.pdf

Rome. 2001. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2789e/y2789e00. pdf

• Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture 3. Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification.

• Guidelines for the Eco-Labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries. FAO Rome. 2005. http://www.

IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain. 2009. http:// data. iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2009-061.pdf

fao.org/docrep/008/a0116t/a0116t00.htm • A qualitative assessment of standards and certification • Eco-labels and Marine Capture Fisheries: Current Practice and

schemes applicable to aquaculture in the Asia-Pacific region.

Emerging Issues. GLOBEFISH Research Programme. Washing-

FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Thailand. 2007.

ton, S. Vol. 91. FAO Rome. 2008. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/

RAP PUBLICATION 2007/25. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/

mafac/meetings/2008_07/docs/GLOBEFISH_Eco-labels_mari-

ai388e/ai388e00.pdf

ne_capture_fisheries.pdf • Synthesis of Mediterranean marine finfish aquaculture – a mar• Certification and Sustainable Fisheries. UNEP Division of Tech-

keting and promotion strategy. Barazi-Yeroulanos, L. Studies and

nology, Industry and Economics. Macfadyen, G. and Huntington,

Reviews. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.

T. 2009. http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/FS%20certifica-

No. 88 FAO Rome. 2010. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1696e/

tion% 20study%202009/UNEP%20Certification.pdf

i1696e.pdf

• Proceedings of the OECD/FAO Round Table on Eco-Labelling & Certification in Fisheries. The Hague. 22-23 April 2009. http:// www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/43/43356890.pdf • Review of Fish Sustainability Information Schemes – Final Report. Fish Sustainability Information Group. MRAG. January 2010. http://www.mrag.co.uk/Documents/FSIG_Final_report.pdf • Review of Eco-Labelling schemes for fish and fishery products from capture fisheries. Sainsbury, K. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 533. FAO Rome. 2010. http://www. fao. org/docrep/013/i1433e/i1433e00.pdf

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 45

8. Endnotes.

1A

good resource to understand the structure and workings of the

14

However, fishery products from bivalve molluscs, equinoderms,

EU can be found at http://europa. eu/abc/12lessons/index_en.htm

tunicates, and marine gastropods can be commercialised if they

2

have been produced in conformity with section VII of annex III,

(for a complete list see: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sanco/tra-

ces/output/listsPerActivity_en.htm#)

and bullet 2 of chapter V of the same section of Regulation CE No.

3

How to Export Seafood to the EU. 2nd edn. Feb 2009. By ITC

853/2004.

15 For fishery products: vessels, landing sites, transporters, cool

(WTO/UNCTAD). Geneva. Available from http://www.intracen.org/

stores, processors, etc. For aquaculture products: feed producers,

tdc/ Export%20Quality%20Bulletins/EQM84eng.pdf 4 A third country is a non-member country of the EU.

hatcheries, farms, transporters, processors, etc.

16

Against EU standards or officially equivalent ones.

5

Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 of the European Parliament and

17

Regulation (CE) 882/2004 art 12

of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to en-

18

For more information on RASFF: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/

sure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal

rapidalert/index_en.htm

health and animal welfare rules. Article 2. Definitions.

Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004. 1.(6).

19

For a deeper view into the more technical details, see F. Blaha.

6

7 Regulation

(EC) No. 1250/2008 of 12 December 2008. http://eur-

For example: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/rapidalert/reports/

week8-2008_en.pdf 20

Council Regulation (EC) No.1005/2008 of 29 September 2008

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008R1250

establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate

:en:NOT

illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. An explanation hand-

8

FVO homepage http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ir_search_en.cfm

book can be downloaded from http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/

9

For the list of establishments at each of the authorised countries

see https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/ sanco/traces/output/listsPerAc-

external_relations/illegal_fishing/pdf/handbook_ en.pdf 21 Adapted from: Best Practice Study of Fish Catch Documenta-

tivity_en.htm#

tion Schemes Phase 1 Report, 2009. MRAG Asia Pacific Pty Ltd

10

See Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products. 2010.

for the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/ standards/10273/

(DEFRA) 22 Fishing Vessels Monitoring Systems. Usually satellite based,

CXP_052e.pdf 11

Animal health for aquaculture animals exceeds the scope of this

see http://www.fao.org/fishery/vms/en

publication, but should not be ignored.

23

12

09:280:0005:0041:EN:PDF

Official controls of production and placing on the market (Chap-

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:20

ter I), Official controls of fishery products (Chapter II), Decisions

24

after controls (Chapter III).

legal aspects of Eco-Labelling, see, C.R. Wessells et al., Product

13

certification and Eco-Labelling for fisheries sustainability. FAO

This list is an illustrative one and is far from exhaustive.

For a discussion of the theoretical foundations, institutional and

Fisheries Technical Paper 422. Rome. 2001.

25 http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0116t/a0116t00.htm 26

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/45834/icode/

27

S. Washington. Eco-labels and Marine Capture Fisheries:

Current Practice and Emerging Issues. GLOBEFISH Research Programme, Vol. 91. FAO Rome. 2008.

28

Macruronus novaezelandiae. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Blue_grenadier

46 l  EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling

9. Glossary.

29

Alastair Macfarlane, General Manager, Trade and Information at

BIP

Border Inspection Post

New Zealand Seafood Industry Council. Pers comm.

CA

Competent Authority

30

EC

European Commission

species

EU

European Union

31

For an in-depth vision of the situation of the organic aquaculture

FBO

Food Business Operator

market in Europe refer to: L. Barazi- Yeroulanos. Synthesis of Med-

FFP

Fish and Fishery Products

iterranean marine finfish aquaculture – a marketing and promotion

FVO

Food and Veterinary Office

strategy. Studies and Reviews. General Fisheries Commission for

GG

GlobalGap

the Mediterranean. No. 88. FAO Rome. 2010. http://www.fao.org/

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points

docrep/013/i1696e/i1696e.pdf 32 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:20

ISO

International Standards Organisations

IUU

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fisheries

07:189:0001:0023:EN:PDF

MB

Member Country

33

NPC

National Control Plan

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/seafood/red-list-of-

Com Reg. (EC) No.1235/2008 of 8 December 2008 laying

down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC)

RASFF Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed

No. 834/2007 regarding the arrangements for imports of organic

RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation

products from third countries. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/

SPS

LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:334:0025:00 52:EN:PDF 34 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/43/43356890.pdf

SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises

35

Sanitary and Phytosanitary (measures)

Based on the presentation by Peter Hajipieris, Birds Eye Iglo,

“Recent developments in the branding and marketing of fish and fish products.”

36

Specifies general requirements for third-party operating a prod-

uct certification system.

37

The ISEAL Alliance is the global association for social and envi-

ronmental standards. http://www. isealalliance.org 38

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/full_report_wwf_ecolabel_

study_lowres.pdf 39

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/benchmarking_study_wwf_

aquaculture_standards_new_.pdf

EU Market Access & Eco-Labelling l 47

www.sippo.ch/flickr www.sippo.ch/youtube www.sippo.ch/slideshare

Osec

www.sippo.ch/twitter

Swiss Import Promotion Programme Stampfenbachstrasse 85

www.sippo.ch/facebook

P.O. Box 2407 CH-8021 Zurich Phone +41 44 365 51 51

www.sippo.ch/xing

Fax +41 44 365 52 02

www.sippo.ch/linkedin

sippo@osec.ch

Copyright Š Osec April 2011. All rights reserved.

www.sippo.ch