Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling - SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice - page 228

certification may simply 'shop around' for an ecolabel that does not expose any of
their performance weaknesses in that set of issues. However, this risk is perhaps less
than that posed by a flexible standard, because where a standard is fixed consumers
can at least determine what standard lies behind an ecolabel. A fixed standard that
properly addresses each of the five sustainability issues and meets community norms
of performance expectations for each issue (as discussed above) is likely to be the
most effective form of standard for a high-quality seafood incentive programme,
depending on the quality of the verification system (see below). To avoid stagnation,
a fixed standard would need to be kept under close scrutiny and revised/updated as
necessary to incorporate the latest technical knowledge, and to reflect changes in
community norms and marketplace perceptions.
The advantage of flexible standards is that they can be customised to apply
to many specific circumstances of fishery or aquaculture ventures, but the major
disadvantage is that the standard owner is not able to ensure that a flexible standard
is applied equally and is unbiased in all circumstances, because this becomes a
decision of the certifier. Certifiers are influenced by many other factors, and not
least the need to remain in business themselves, so the way in which they interpret
a flexible standard may be open to influence and dispute. The failure of certifiers to
apply a robust and unbiased verification process may prove to be a major problem for
a seafood assessment programme, because this will erode consumer confidence in
the verification system, and ultimately create confusion in the minds of consumers
and downgrade the credibility of the ecolabel.
At the finest level of decision making within all verification systems, irrespective
of fixed or flexible standards, some form of expert judgement is required by the
certifier/verifier. Both fixed and flexible standards can only be robustly verified if
they are strongly supported by verification systems that clearly set out the rules for
how decisions are to be made in relation to each decision element of the standard
(including how to treat information gaps and uncertainties). Where the standard
is flexible, the verification system must also specify the detail of the processes
and rules under which the decision elements of the system will be derived from the
flexible standard. For both fixed and flexible standards, the verification system must
also set out the form of decision process to be used in awarding a grade, mark or
outcome at the finest level of the decision elements (such as the level of performance
indicator in the MSC system). In situations where the standard is flexible and the
verification system is open to certifier interpretation, the outcome of a certification
assessment is not likely to be robust, again leading to issues with the credibility
of the ecolabelling programme in the minds of consumers (Ghazoul 2001, Auld &
Bull 2003).
10.4.9 Normative standard
Sustainability standards are set for specific purposes, and by different organisations
to deliver against specific parts of their mandate. However, where the incentive