FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling in Wild-Capture Fisheries - SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice - page 65

2.3 Be of a voluntary nature and market-driven.

2.4 Be transparent, including balanced and fair participation by all interested

parties.

2.5 Be non-discriminatory, do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade and

allow for fair trade and competition.

2.6 Provide the opportunity to enter international markets.

2.7 Establish clear accountability for the owners of schemes and the certifi-

cation bodies in conformity with international standards.

2.8 Incorporate reliable, independent auditing and verification procedures.

2.9 Be considered equivalent if consistent with these guidelines.

2.10 Be based on the best scientific evidence available, also taking into account

traditional knowledge of the resources provided that its validity can be
objectively verified.

2.11 Be practical, viable and verifiable.

2.12 Ensure that labels communicate truthful information.

2.13 Provide for clarity.

2.14 Be based, at a minimum, on the minimum substantive requirements,

criteria and procedures outlined in these guidelines.

3. The principle of transparency should apply to all aspects of an ecolabelling

scheme including its organizational structure and financial arrangements.

Principle 2.1 was included to give assurance that ecolabelling schemes will not
contravene widely accepted or ratified international instruments.
Principle 2.14 establishes the FAO guidelines as a minimum standard for any
capture fisheries ecolabelling scheme. Whether the guidelines should be consid-
ered the international standard within the framework of WTO rules and regulations
is open to interpretation for reasons discussed in greater detail in Wessells et al .
(2001). WTO does not claim to be the appropriate forum for discussions on the gen-
eral usefulness of ecolabelling schemes or what constitutes appropriate criteria for
assessing sustainability. Indeed, WTO explicitly defers such issues to international
agreements or bodies with appropriate expertise (Wessells et al . 2001).
The precise formulation of Principle 2.6 was controversial until nearly the end
of the negotiations that took place during the process of adoption of the guidelines
in COFI. Some felt that its intent was already reflected in Principles 2.1 and 2.5.
Others argued that the idea of gaining better access to international markets through
ecolabelling schemes should be a principle by itself. Whereas Principle 2.1 already
refers to consistency with WTO rules, a reiteration of this requirement was felt
necessary for Principles 2.5 and 2.6. This emphasis needs to be interpreted in the
context of the debate in WTO, in particular within its CTE, on the applicability of
WTO rules to environmental labelling (see Wessells et al . 2001). In relation to this
subject, it needs to be recalled that the tuna-dolphin and shrimp-turtle trade disputes
have likely caused sensitivities among several countries and a cautious attitude to
the potential implications of international ecolabelling guidelines, should a trade
dispute arise.