Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling - SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice - page 217

this is the operational expression of the concept of 'sustainability'. This expression
is highly value-laden, and is not a decision to be made by scientists or technical
advisory bodies alone (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of this issue in relation
to aquaculture). The level of acceptable effect is a decision to be taken by the
standard owner recognising the range of values, perceptions and positions held by
the stakeholders and consumers that jointly will contribute to the success or failure
of the incentive system. It is clear that such decision process should be well informed
and grounded in technically reliable data, information and points of uncertainty.
However, the decisions about the levels of acceptable impact should be made by
the standard owner recognising community norms, prevailing values, the market
types to be influenced, the existing levels of industry best practice and the type of
environmental improvements that are the focus of the specific incentive system.
The standard (combining the choice of elements to be covered and the levels of
acceptable impact on each element) is the performance benchmark against which the
producer or fishery will be assessed. To be effective, the product endorsement must
be directly linked to the standard (see Chapter 1) because only through reference to
the standard can a consumer determine what the endorsement really represents in
the case of each producer or fishery being assessed for their right to carry a product
endorsement.
10.4.2 Clear and unequivocal standard
The standard must be a clearly defined and expressed benchmark. If the standard
is unclear, ambiguous, implicit rather than explicit or in any way not definitive,
then assessments carried out to verify compliance of a venture may not provide
clear outcomes. This is because any verification may then be subject to substantial
levels of interpretation (by all parties), be uncertain and lead to an inconclusive, and
possibly disputed, assessment outcome. Also, a standard that is not explicit may
be open to pressure and manipulation by specific interests or sector groups to press
home a particular vantage point. Such an opportunity, in most countries, favours
the industry sector over the environment or local community interests, because
these latter groups rarely have adequate resources to enable them to fully engage in
disputes over assessment outcomes that may appear to be inconclusive or incorrect.
As one example of the unintended consequences of a flexible standard, there
is concern that certified fisheries may shelter behind the apparent protection of
compliance with a sustainability standard when being pressed to provide improved
sustainability practices. Australia's Western Rock Lobster Fishery has denied the
need to design and implement fishing sanctuaries amongst the Western Australian
coastal reef systems to meet sustainability requirements because it claims that
this matter is covered under its Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification
(Sutton 2003). While such sanctuaries are clearly likely to be beneficial for both
fisheries management and offsetting fishery impacts (Ward et al . 2001), the fishery
managers claim that the MSC certification proves that the fishery is sustainable