Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
assessed. Using a science-based approach to fish stocks and a stakeholder-based
approach to environmental issues will unbalance the standard, introduce a bias and
provide for an inconsistent decision-making process within the standard and the
verification process. While the bias may be theoretically circumvented by use of
the certification outcome or ecolabel only in the local context of the venture being
assessed, in practice this cannot be achieved, and comparisons with other ventures
are the inevitable result (see Chapter 1).
The standard should be expressed in clear technical terms where possible, in-
cluding the use of numerical benchmarks, but where a benchmark is to be derived
through a process, either in the management system, or in the verification process,
the precise steps and methodology need to be defined in clear technical detail in
the standard. Where standards and embedded processes are not defined, and perfor-
mance is based on expert judgement on the part of the certifier, verification can be
problematical because of the potential abuse of the use of experts to support specific
positions (see the discussion on norms below). The technical clarity of a standard
is an important safeguard against an unintentional embedded emphasis on specific
matters, and helps to avoid motivational bias in either verification outcomes or in
assessments of the overall incentive programme.
A standard that purports to address ecological sustainability issues in wild-
capture fisheries should therefore clearly address the technical basis for how de-
cisions about such complex matters as 'overfishing' are to be determined during
verification of compliance with the standard. Leaving such matters open to the
judgement of verifiers/certifiers is equivalent to providing a flexible standard, with
the attendant risks of bias and manipulation.
10.4.7
Achievable
The standard needs to be set at a level that is clearly achievable by at least a small
number of the types of ventures that may wish to be assessed for compliance. Cre-
ating a standard that is too high (seeking high levels of ecological sustainability)
will not provide an effective market-based incentive. Seafood producers will gen-
erally evaluate the costs of attaining a high standard (such as changes required in
their practices, data and information required to prove compliance, any substantial
restructuring of activities) to determine if they are offset by the benefits of endorsed
products.
Where the standard is flexible (see below) the gap between the existing level of
performance and the level of performance intended by the standard is undefined,
and verification becomes difficult and contentious, and open to influence. So, in
developing a standard, certification organisations need to consider carefully how to
specify the 'gap', and how to deal with verification. If the gap is too great, only few
ventures will be compliant, there will be little endorsed product and the programme
may fail, through the lack of marketable products, to generate the consumer-pull
Search WWH ::
Custom Search