WWW.WAS.ORG • WORLD AQUACULTURE • JUNE 2019 31 FIGURE 1. The process of accreditation and certification used by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. Figure 1. The process of accreditation and certification used by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. permitted to use labels and logos owned by the standardholding body, and 4) Some type of “chain of custody” system is instituted to ensure that certified products from the farm can be identified by end-user customers. One problem, however, is that nowadays there are so many different standards that could be applied to aquaculture operations, many farmers, members of the seafood supply chain, NGOs and consumers find the entire sustainability landscape very confusing. This has led to confusion among producers, retailers and consumers over how to recognize a credible seafood certification scheme or how to purchase seafood that has been responsibly sourced. The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP), and GlobalGAP are just a few examples of the numerous certification schemes that producers might consider. In addition, many jurisdictions and national regulators impose their own aquaculture regulations. The Credibility of Certification Schemes Given the range of certification alternatives, it is important to determine what constitutes a credible seafood certification system. Guidelines developed by the FAO acknowledge that sustainable development of aquaculture depends on three factors – social, economic and environmental sustainability – all of which have to be addressed proportionally. In addition, to ensure credibility, FAO Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification cover: • The standard setting processes required to develop and review certification standards, • The accreditation systems needed to provide formal recognition to a qualified body to carry out certification assessments, and • The qualifications and practices of the certification bodies required to verify compliance with certification standards. The guidelines provide information on the institutional and organizational arrangements for aquaculture certification and include governance requirements that are designed to ensure that conflicts of interest do not occur. One of the most important indicators of a credible certification scheme is compliance with international requirements set down by the ISEAL Alliance (2014). ISEAL is a global association for credible sustainability standards. Members of ISEAL are sustainability standards-holders that meet Codes of Good Practice and promote measurable change through open, rigorous and accessible certification systems. Members are supported by international accreditation bodies that are required to meet accepted international best practice. To ensure objectivity and avoid conflicts of interest, the process of farm assessment should be carried out through a third-party process. Third-party programs offer the highest level of assurance and mean that the outcome is unbiased. Farm assessments to determine compliance with standards are normally carried out by CABs (Conformity Assessment Bodies). Another indicator of the credibility of a scheme is the way in which approved CABs are accredited and monitored. The more credible schemes usually use ASI (Assurance Services International, formerly Accreditation Services International) as a quality assurance process for approved CABs. ASI is completely independent of all standard-holders and as such helps to ensure the third-party nature of certification processes. As an example of how the accreditation and certification process works in practice, the scheme used by the ASC is illustrated in Figure 1. In addition to setting standards, the standard-holder also selects a Chain of Custody (CoC) system for ensuring that products certified on the farm are the same products that eventually get to the end-users. In the case of the ASC, the CoC methodology used is an established process that is administered through the Marine Stewardship Council. An important aspect of the certification process is the use of specific logos that a producer, processor or marketer can use to demonstrate to end-users that their products have been through the certification process. The logo is often displayed on the final product packaging that a customer would see on a supermarket product, for example. The license to use the logo is normally held by the standardholding body and in most cases that body will charge for its use. The cost for a farm to go through the certification process varies according to the type of standard required but usually the main cost is the hire of an accredited company (CAB) to undertake the farm-based certification survey. Audit fees depend on the size and complexity of the farm and on its location and the associated travel implications for auditors. In many cases, more than one auditor may be required to perform the on-site audit. To determine actual costs, farms need to contact appropriate accredited auditors. So, given the fact that certification implies additional costs, why would a farm want to become certified? Other than in a few very specific cases, the hope that certified products may command higher market prices generally has not been borne out by recent (CONTINUED ON PAGE 32) To produce more seafood without increasing harm to the environment or to future human populations, it will be necessary to find new and innovative ways to operate farms and to find ways to recognize and reward farms that do the right thing. The theme of this article will be to question whether internationally-recognized certification schemes could help to achieve this.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=