A wider scope for eco-labelling should include the carbon footprint of fishing practices and the use of toxic pollutants, a new study shows.
The study by three Swedish and Danish researchers, commissioned by the EU Commission, compared eco-labelling systems used for licensing by four different bodies:
- ‘The Dolphin Safe Tuna’ – introduced as a ‘single attribute’ label (focusing on one important issue) to protect dolphins from being caught as a by-product of tuna fishing
- the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label – a ‘multiple attribute’ label (focusing on more than one issue) that promotes sustainable fishing by limiting over-fishing and reducing impacts on the marine ecosystem
- the Swedish KRAV label – a multiple attribute label that encompasses many types of environmental aspects in several stages of the product’s life cycle
- the Danish DSLS label – a multiple attribute label with a focus on promoting energy-efficient fishing methods with minimal damage to the seabed. This label is presently not in use.
All these schemes are designed to manage aspects of environmental damage from a range of fishing-related activities, but vary considerably in their scope. Although the Swedish and Danish labels are only national accreditations, both systems address several types of environmental impacts including the contribution of fishing to global warming (via energy use) and cover more stages of the seafood products’ lifecycle than the Dolphin and MSC schemes, which concentrate on the effects on marine resources at the fishing stage.
The study emphasises that the environmental impact of seafood products extends far beyond the initial impact of fishing on the marine environment. It subsequently makes suggestions for criteria to be included in eco-labelling schemes which could improve the overall environmental record of fisheries.
For example, the carbon footprint of the seafood industry should be lowered and the use of toxic pollutants, such as anti-fouling chemicals used to coat the hulls of boats, should be reduced. One way of reducing energy use would be to promote energy efficient fishing equipment and restrict less efficient equipment, for example, the beam trawl, used to fish along the sea floor.
The scientists also suggest that a maximum fuel quota or tradable carbon credit scheme could be introduced, as used by many other industries. The latter system would reward energy efficient fisheries by allowing them to sell their excess credits. Managing this system, however, could be complex, they added. Naturally, protection of fish stocks through sustainable harvesting, minimised by-catches and reduced damage to the sea floor should continue to be included in eco-labelling criteria.
The MSC label, which is the internationally most widely spread, does not presently account for the carbon footprint of the fishing industry. The study notes that in life cycle assessments (LCAs) of seafood products, the fishing stage often produces the most greenhouse gases (GHGs). However, for some fish products, such as canned mackerel and pickled herring, the processing stage can have the greatest impact in terms of GHG emissions, due to the packaging used. Eco-labels should therefore cover all stages of the cycle, not only the fishing stage, which is the focus of the MSC and Dolphin schemes, the study concludes.