With the exception of the MSC, a WWF report reveals poor performance among other assessed seafood ecolabelling schemes. (Photo: FIS)

MSC ranked first in ecolabelling study

WORLDWIDE
Monday, January 18, 2010, 23:30 (GMT + 9)

A new report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) that reveals poor performance among seafood ecolabelling schemes and calls for all-embracing improvements placed the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) at the top spot.

Accenture’s non-profit practice, Accenture Development Partnerships (ADP), compared and ranked seven fishery certification programmes that use ecolabels on seafood products, against a set of WWF criteria focusing on the schemes’ effectiveness in addressing fisheries’ and oceans’ health.

MSC is ranked first in the ADP report, “Assessment of On-Pack, Wild-Capture Seafood Sustainability Certification Programmes and Seafood Ecolabels,” with a score of over 95 per cent compliance to WWF’s criteria requirements.

The report says that apart from MSC, the other assessed schemes - Naturland, Friend of the Sea (FOS), KRAV, Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme (AIDCP), Mel-Japan and Southern Rocklobster - do not evaluate fisheries comprehensively enough to support sustainable fishing and healthy marine ecosystems.

“The findings of this assessment reveal serious inadequacies in a number of ecolabels and cast doubt on their overall contribution to effective fisheries management and sustainability,” said Miguel Jorge, director of WWF International’s Marine Programme.

(graph: WWF)

“While the assessment shows the MSC comes out best in class using the most rigorous programme out there, it is not perfect. Improvements are needed across the board to ensure all seafood ecolabels deliver on their promise,” he clarified.

The criteria used reflect best practices for fisheries ecolabelling certification schemes with the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) 2005 guidelines. Standards developed by the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL) and elements from WWF’s framework for ecosystem-based management of fisheries were added.

There are significant differences in transparency, information availability, structure and accuracy of claims made by each scheme. Aside from MSC, all other schemes showed substantial shortcomings in transparency and information provision.

“The growth of seafood ecolabels over the last 10 years attests to the strong demand from consumers and seafood companies who want seafood from better fisheries,” Jorge said. “But with the proliferation of ecolabels and the variability of these schemes there is a real risk of confusion, or worse still a lack of confidence in seafood ecolabelling among buyers and consumers.”

WWF is also working with major seafood buyers to secure sustainable seafood purchases and assess their current supply chain. The report is meant to clarify and inform this group’s choices.

The most credible ecolabelling schemes accepted in international fora are voluntary, third-party, operated independently and involving interested parties.

Also, issues like carbon footprint, animal welfare and social issues such as worker’s rights are increasing within public consciousness. WWF encourages the seafood ecolabelling community to develop internationally agreed criteria for these priority issues and to create evaluation mechanisms.

Related articles:

- MSC introduces an 'evolved and improved' ecolabel
- MSC and FOS unendorsable: Greenpeace
- How dolphin safe is tuna?

By Natalia Real
[email protected]
www.seafood.media

Print