.png)
Rebecca SE Tan
20 July 2022
Introduction
In my previous post on Saving Nemo I: International Laws on Unsustainable Fishing, I introduced the threat of unsustainable fishing to our food supply and global livelihoods.[1] I then explored the solution of international laws, in particular the UNCLOS and the PSMA, which granted flag states and port states jurisdiction to control fish stocks better and prevent illegal fishing.[2] While great in theory, these international laws are often tricky to enforce, regardless of a country’s commitment.[3] Due to the decentralisation of harvesting and processing of marine stocks, there are many potential opportunities for fraud.[4] In addition, illegal fishing practices may also take place in deep-sea fisheries, which lie beyond national jurisdiction.[5] Hence, this post expounds on a complementary solution: improving traceability through the efforts of catch documentation schemes (CDS) and ecolabelling. As per my previous post, this essay will also consider a reduction in illegal fishing a parallel to a reduction in unsustainable fishing.[6]
Catch Documentation Schemes (CDS)
Documentation is used to establish a legal supply chain to promote sustainable fisheries and is particularly significant in port and processing states.[7][8] Theoretically, documentation could be used to trace all illegal fishing activities, whether at the landing, importation, or consumer market level.[9] By restricting the market access of these illicit fishing products, documentation serves as an economic disincentive for unsustainable fishing.[10]
As of today, there are three multilateral CDS to trace the harvest and trade of marine stocks (Table 1).[11] These CDS regulate fisheries by demanding trade documentation before the importation of targeted species can be authorised.[12] Coupled with the brutality of trade sanctions, these schemes were effective in identifying and eliminating fishing vessels that were associated with flags of convenience.[13]
Organisation enforcing CDS | Targeted Species |
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) | Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish |
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) | Atlantic bluefin tuna |
Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) | Southern bluefin tuna |
Table 1. Depicts the species focus of the three CDS.[14]
Similarly, there is also a unilateral CDS started by the European Union in 2010.[15] This CDS regulates the trade of most wild-caught marine finfish in the EU market and requires catch certificates to be validated by flag states.[16]
However, despite these impressive steps towards improving traceability, illegally sourced products have still been able to make their way into consumer markets. Entry of these products could be due to lapses at any of the four critical points: the certification by authorities at the point of landing, the checks by port or processing authorities at importation, trade certification during export, and the checking of validated certificates by border authorities in end-markets.[17] Indeed, illegal fish operators possess great motives in finding creative tactics to bypass restrictions. Methods include transferring illegal seafood to a vessel with legal documentation, misclassifying fish species such as Patagonia toothfish as other seabass species or suppressing their green weight by importing fillets instead of whole fish.[18][19] Even if a vessel was flagged for past illegal activities, owners may change their names or switch their flags, especially under flags of convenience.[20] In fact, some vessels were even found to have changed their names nine times or their flags seven times![21] Hence, effectual documentation is incredibly challenging, as it relies on national authorities being highly competent in detecting and reporting fraud.[22]
Furthermore, documentation requires strong collective will and coordination, as loopholes will allow illegal fishing stocks to enter the market and reduce the economic disincentive of unsustainable fishing.[23][24] Currently, the three multilateral CDS only covers less than 0.1% of global wild fishery catch, while the unilateral CDS lacks a central registry to issue and record certificates.[25] These shortfalls may render documentation ineffective in tracing between individual country systems and fish stocks, potentially creating many avenues for fraud.[26] [27][28][29]
Perhaps, greater standardisation of documentation schemes and the use of third-party auditing may reduce the erroneous allowances of illegal fishing stocks into the market.[30] More can also be done to greater incentivise sustainable fishing rather than simply regulate the unsustainable ones.
Ecolabelling
One such way to provide positive incentives and standardisation is ecolabelling.[31] Using certification as a means to inform consumers of sustainable fisheries, ecolabelling offers a market-based approach that rides on consumer preferences.[32][33] These certifications can help fishing operators increase revenue or break into exclusive markets for certified products.[34][35] Examples include the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Friend of the Sea, which aim to recognise fisheries that adopt environmentally friendly strategies.[36][37][38]
In particular, the MSC is a prominent organisation which sets global standards and employs third-party independent certifiers to assess fisheries.[39] The MSC has the highest representation of eco-labelled seafood, with 132 certified fisheries that cover 10% of wild capture fisheries.[40][41] They are also lauded for their transparency and stakeholder consultations, as well as their requirement for continual adherence and improvement through annual audits.[42][43][44] Indeed, empirical research has shown that MSC-certified seafood is three to five times less likely to be subject to unsustainable practices.[45]
Still, there are feasibility challenges in a worldwide implementation of ecolabelling, particularly in developing nations.[46] Due to their many small-scale production systems, heavy data collection to meet ecolabelling standards may be too arduous or costly.[47] In addition, consumers in developing countries may not be as willing to fork out excessive prices for more sustainable seafood.[48] In these cases, negotiation, group certification, technical assistance, and cost-sharing may be needed to ease concerns.[49][50]
Discussion
Improving traceability is one way to reduce loopholes in large-scale international agreements. With greater technological advances and political support, I believe that tracing can create an effective carrot-and-stick system to encourage sustainable fishing. What do you think about this solution? Do you think consumer behaviour will be a significant factor in pushing for greater traceability? Do share your ideas below!
Author's note: Click on the "Sustainable Fishing" tag at the bottom for related articles!
Comments