Aquaculture Certification - SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice - page 113

a 50% drop in prices over a 10-year period (FAO 1997). Consumers benefit from
falling prices as farmed products make inroads into luxury markets. In 1992 it was
estimated that US shrimp prices would have been 70% higher had it not been for
imports of farmed product (Keithly et al. 1992), and given the steady growth in
shrimp aquaculture this price depression effect is sure to be even greater today.
The potential for aquaculture to reduce pressure on wild fisheries is also illustrated
by the situation in the US where low cost imports of farmed shrimp are challeng-
ing the economic viability of coastal shrimp fisheries, with fishermen lobbying for
protectionist measures to keep their industry afloat. While scientific and technical
progress drive competitiveness in the aquaculture industry, fishermen have to con-
front problems like rising fuel costs with limited hope of increasing their economic
efficiency in weakly managed fisheries.

5.5 Aquaculture certification schemes

Before a certification scheme can be launched, requirements need to be written
down and codified. The resulting documents may take the form of general codes
of good practice or more precise sets of quantifiable standards. There are many
organisations that have taken on the task of creating these documents in respect of
aquaculture. Some are producer or trade associations, or have close links to such
associations, and they limit their attention to a particular species or to a species
produced in a specific geographical area. This approach has produced a number of
well-conceived, detailed standards tailored to the immediate and particular needs
of producers and markets. However, the highly specific nature of many of these
schemes limits their prospects for gaining widespread consumer recognition and
for conveying wider, consistent messages about the sustainability of aquaculture
practices globally.
There are two broad types of aquaculture certification schemes, non-organic
(Table 5.1) and organic (Table 5.2). The various schemes differ in the species they
cover, their geographical range and the use of an ecolabel aimed at consumers. The
schemes also differ greatly in the way they focus on one or more of five main issues -
the environment, social concerns, food safety, traceability and animal welfare. They
all cover environmental issues to some extent (except perhaps SQF 1000 and SQF
2000) but there are big variations with regard to coverage of social issues. Most
organic standards and standards aimed at producers in developed countries have no
social provisions at all. When it comes to auditing procedures, most non-organic
schemes, if they are not state run, rely on the services of independent, third-party
auditing companies because this adds to a scheme's credibility. Within organic
certification schemes, most standards are written to conform to the general princi-
ples of the organic movement as defined by international umbrella groups such as
IFOAM (www.ifoam.org). Organic certification bodies usually take on the roles of
setting precise standards and overseeing, more or less directly, the auditing process.