Abstract

The assessment and/or certification of fisheries (both wild caught and aquaculture-based) are clearly becoming hot topics in the current twenty first century milieu of eco-friendly living and food production. Certification is a mechanism to increase the credibility of claims related to quality of the product being presented in the consumer market.⁷ In general, fishery assessment systems have evolved for a particular purpose or set of purposes which influence their underlying construction, resulting in a wide diversity of existent programs.³ Compliance to the standards set by any of the existing fisheries certification schemes is the benchmark of the success of that scheme to drive farmers or producers, suppliers, and retailers to truly set forth a seafood product that has minimal impact on ecosystems and the environment associated with its production.

The output of fisheries assessment systems or schemes affecting consumer choices wields power that influences fishery economics and management, as well as marketplace dynamics.³ This power has resulted in global concern for maintaining guidelines for eco-labeling of fish products⁶ and makes the need for transparency and accountability of successful assessment systems (both governmental and nongovernmental) essential.³

Members of the aquatic animal medicine community often have involvement in aquatic animal conservation issues. They also represent a valuable source of information and advice to clientele who may ultimately be seafood consumers or share a sense of environmental stewardship. The purpose of presenting this general overview is to introduce the existence of fisheries evaluation schemes, especially as they apply to the concept of ecosystem-based fisheries management, a focus of our laboratory's ongoing research.

The value of sustainable fishing methods and/or eco-friendly acquisition and presentation of seafood to the ultimate endpoint, the consumer, is perceived and defined differently in the vast amount of web-based and printed literature references. Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program defines sustainable seafood as "originating from sources, whether fished or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems."⁵ The Marine Stewardship Council defines a sustainable fishery as "one that: 1) can be continued indefinitely at a reasonable level; 2) maintains and seeks to maximize ecological health and abundance; 3) maintains the diversity, structure, function, and habitat quality of the ecosystem on which it depends, minimizing adverse effects; 4) is managed and operated responsibly, conforming to local, national, and international laws and regulations; 5) maintains present and future economic and social options/benefits; and 6) is conducted in a socially and economically fair and responsible manner".⁴ Greenpeace states "In simple terms, a sustainable fishery is one whose practices can be maintained indefinitely without reducing the targeted species' ability to maintain its population at healthy levels, and without adversely impacting on other species within the ecosystem, including humans, by removing their food source, accidentally killing them, or damaging their physical environment."¹

Reviews of current fisheries assessment systems are available, with discussions about system weaknesses, points of reference the schemes evaluate from, and the difficulty of making comparisons that are constructive.^3,7 There are a number of viewpoints in play and a full spectrum of opinions as to how, when, and whether or not to pursue and develop truly "fool proof" evaluation schemes; and, more esoterically, the question of how to successfully implement aspiration to "platinum"⁵ fisheries methodologies with maximum benefit to all stakeholders (or parties) involved.

The World Wildlife Fund 2007 benchmarking study for aquaculture standards states: "The identification of key impacts, acceptable performance levels and credible compliance and regulatory frameworks is especially important for eco and social labeling programmes where reduced impacts are implicit. Because such programmes may have little or no discernible impact on the finished product (non-product related process and production methods) they must prove performance to be credible."⁸

Several sources refer to a threefold assessment approach for current or future evaluation schemes to consider: are the fisheries adhering to methods that are: 1) environmentally or ecosystem based?; 2) nutritionally based (i.e., nutrient value, contaminants, etc.)?; and/or 3) socially conscious (concerned with producers and consumers and their surrounding communities, both ecologically and economically)? The "ideal" is a fishery that adheres to standards that cover all three of these aspects. In the opinion of many sources and varied references (e.g., Monterey Bay Aquarium, Seafish, United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization [FAO]), none such fisheries evaluation schemes currently exist. Known for a direct approach to all things environmental, Greenpeace, the private NGO, states, "Greenpeace is of the opinion that no fully credible certification program for sustainable wild caught or farmed seafood currently exists. So far, the challenges facing our oceans are far from being tackled and the fundamental principles of precaution and ecosystem approach are not yet incorporated into fisheries management."¹ While this opinion rings rather pessimistic, there is some hope in the fact that wild caught fisheries and aquaculture evaluation programs are abundant in developed countries and are of international spectrum.

A series of papers, workshops, and future directives out of our laboratory focus more on the comparison of standards, assessment and/or accreditation, and monitoring procedures associated with selected existent certification schemes rather than solely examining which schemes promote responsible consumption of wild and farmed seafood. This comparison may further identification of schemes that are oriented toward the precepts of "ecosystem based fisheries management" or EBFM, an important step in the process of studying fisheries certification that may be applicable to current and future small and large scale, multispecies fisheries.

In 2007, Greenpeace commented on EBFM, stating: "Essentially, the ecosystem approach to marine management requires consideration of whole ecosystems at a scale that ensures that ecosystem integrity is maintained. It recognizes the complex interactions between species that make up marine ecosystems, and so is underpinned by principles of community biology and ecology. This is radically different from the present situation where most fisheries management measures focus on single species and do not consider the role of the species in the wider ecosystem. Moreover, the various industries that affect the marine environment are currently managed on a sector by sector basis so that no consideration is given to their cumulative impacts.

Given the scientific uncertainty and unpredictability of marine ecosystems, it is vital that ecosystem based management is applied in conjunction with a precautionary approach. What this means in practice is that a lack of knowledge does not excuse decision makers from taking action, but rather that they err on the side of caution. To achieve this, the burden of proof must be placed on those who want to undertake activities, such as fishing, or coastal development to show that these activities will not harm the marine environment before any action is permitted. This will encourage sustainable development and fisheries, while limiting destructive practices.

The objective of applying the ecosystem based approach is to ensure that ecosystems are not systematically degraded and that the conditions required for the provision of human needs, future or present, are not undermined. Moreover, ecosystem based management should focus management action where the control over the impact of the activity is most feasible and effective, i.e., on the human activities that impact the marine environment, rather than attempt to manipulate the way in which an ecosystem is functioning.

In order to implement ecosystem based management, a whole package of management measures needs to be introduced, underpinned by the establishment of networks of large scale marine reserves. Implementation of the ecosystem approach requires a management strategy that:

 Goes beyond a single or multispecies approach by considering the ecosystem as a whole;

 Is aimed at protecting biodiversity and restoring degraded ecosystems, not least with the aim to improve their resilience to global climate change;

 Avoids overharvesting and ecosystem modifications;

 Is based on the precautionary principle--i.e., conservation measures are taken even in the absence of full knowledge of the activities, impacts and ecological responses to these impacts;

 Focuses on the 'upstream' control of human activities, i.e., controlling human activities to minimise and eliminate impacts, rather than focusing on the control of impacts or of ecosystems;

 Is robust even in the light of uncertainties and management oversight; and

 Can be applied with immediate effect."²

We have developed a general overview of the two primary wild caught fisheries certification schemes, Friend of the Sea and Marine Stewardship Council, as well as a "matrix" that compares (when applicable) the third party certification process, standards/criteria, assessment/certification, and monitoring methodologies of selected evaluation and grading schemes that seem to be in play for seafood producers and consumers. The main reason behind this comparison is to determine if any of these programs operate through the tenets of "ecosystem based fisheries management" or EBFM. How close certain programs get to EBFM principles is a key part of our critical reevaluation of fisheries assessment schemes and what measures may need to be undertaken to ensure the future of both stocks and suppliers.

It is worth stating that in the process of researching and organizing the information we included in our scheme comparison matrix, internet searches were largely used; however, we found some of the web sites lacking, requiring e-mail or phone contact in addition to internet work. This could be important from the perspective of a consumer wishing to be informed, or policy development, as well as many other aspects of determining the classification of fisheries and aquaculture entities as EBFM or not. The overwhelming impression gained from this search was that it is a time consuming endeavour, at times confusing or circuitous at best. Such an observation may be important to future development of evaluation program comparisons. More relevant is the need for scientists, policy makers, and consumers, along with producers, to have a more seamless and less mysterious approach to gaining information about current evaluation schemes.

References

1.  Greenpeace. The ecosystem approach: protecting marine life in all its forms. 2007. 4pp. Accessed February 2010 at: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/the-ecosystem-approach-prote.pdf

2.  Greenpeace. Assessment of the Friend of the Sea Fisheries and Aquaculture Certification Programme. 2009. 7 pp. Accessed February 2010 at: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/assessment-of-friend-of-sea.pdf

3.  Leadbitter D, Ward TJ. An evaluation of systems for the integrated assessment of capture fisheries 2007. Marine Policy 31:458-469.

4.  Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Executive Document. Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. 2002. 6 pp.

5.  Monterey Bay Aquarium and California Environmental Associates. Promoting the Adoption of Sustainable Aquaculture Standards. 2007. Monterey, CA. 58 pp.

6.  United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries. 2005. Rome, Italy. Accessed February 2010 at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0116t/a0116t00.htm

7.  United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). A Qualitative Assessment of Standards and Certification Schemes Applicable to Aquaculture in the Asia-Pacific Region. RAP Publication 2007/25. 2007. Bangkok. Accessed February 2010 at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ai388e/ai388e00.htm

8.  World Wildlife Fund. Benchmarking Study on International Aquaculture Certification Programmes. 2007. Switzerland and Norway, Zurich and Oslo. 96 pp.