Bijlagen bij COM(2005)275 - Aanzet tot een debat over een gemeenschappelijke aanpak van milieukeurregelingen voor visserijproducten (SEC(2005)840) - Hoofdinhoud
Dit is een beperkte versie
U kijkt naar een beperkte versie van dit dossier in de EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2005)275 - Aanzet tot een debat over een gemeenschappelijke aanpak van milieukeurregelingen voor visserijproducten (SEC(2005)840). |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2005)275   |
| datum | 29 juni 2005 |
De belangrijkste voordelen van deze aanpak zijn:
- De optie biedt een aanzienlijke flexibiliteit en diversiteit om de consument te laten zien dat het gedrag van zowel de visserijsector als de visserijmanagers tot duurzaamheid bijdraagt. Aldus zouden de milieukeuren ten volle functioneren als commerciële stimulans en een beter beheer van de visserij door de sector aanmoedigen.
- De aanpak zorgt voor een belangrijk “vangnet” van voorwaarden die het risico van concurrentieverstoring of misleidende informatie beperken en goede garanties bieden voor de consument.
- De aanpak stimuleert het streven naar hoogwaardige milieudoelstellingen, wat garandeert dat met de belangrijkste aspecten van de duurzaamheid rekening wordt gehouden en wat de geloofwaardigheid en samenhang van de milieukeurregelingen ten goede komt.
- Milieukeurregelingen kunnen op deze wijze worden aangepast aan de betrokken visserijtak en/of economische partners, bijvoorbeeld kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen of ontwikkelingslanden. De regelingen zouden derhalve toegankelijker zijn en voor de sector goedkoper zijn.
- Reeds operationele regelingen zouden makkelijker kunnen worden geïntegreerd.
Het nadeel van deze aanpak is dat wat aan flexibiliteit wordt gewonnen, aan impact verloren kan gaan.
- De minimumvereisten zouden moeten worden gebaseerd op de huidige ervaringen inzake het instandhoudingsbeleid. Aangezien nog niet in iedere visserijtak meerjarige beheersplannen worden toegepast, mogen de minimumvereisten aanvankelijk niet te streng zijn in vergelijking met het gemeenschappelijk instandhoudingsbeleid, en evenmin discriminatoir. De criteria moeten worden herzien aan de hand van nieuwe ervaringen en wetenschappelijke kennis. De eisen met betrekking tot de milieukeurregelingen moeten dus geleidelijk worden bijgesteld.
- Het is niet gegarandeerd dat alle milieukeuren op de markt de duurzaamheid op dezelfde manier bevorderen. Sommige regelingen zullen wellicht worden toegespitst op het visserijbeheer, terwijl andere bijzondere nadruk leggen op de bescherming van het ecosysteem. Dit kan worden gecompenseerd door adequate voorlichting van de consument.
- Het toezicht op de milieukeurregelingen vereist specifieke vaardigheden in verband met het beheer en de werking van certificeringsregelingen. Bijgevolg zullen de visserijbeheersautoriteiten zichzelf hiermee vertrouwd moeten maken.
- In ieder geval moet de Commissie haar toezichthoudende bevoegdheden uitoefenen om de relevante Gemeenschapswetgeving op dit gebied te handhaven.
6. Conclusie
Aangezien milieukeuren op de communautaire markt voor visserijproducten een belangrijk verschijnsel zijn geworden, is het tijd het debat aan te gaan en te bepalen of een communautaire regeling wenselijk is.
Het is duidelijk dat het vraagstuk van de milieukeurregelingen vele facetten heeft en dat derhalve zeer veel vragen moeten worden beantwoord in de loop van het debat.
Bij dit debat moeten de volgende belangrijke vragen aan de orde worden gesteld:
- Wat moet een milieukeurregeling certificeren: een visserijtak, een visserijmethode of een ander element? Moeten specifieke keurmerken in dat verband worden beschouwd als integrerend deel van het beleid inzake milieukeurregelingen?
- Hoe kan er worden gezorgd voor een aanpak die geen tegenstrijdigheden bevat, haalbaar is en in belangrijke mate is gebaseerd op vrijwilligheid?
- Welke aanpak kan ten volle gebruik maken van alle mogelijkheden die milieukeurregelingen bieden om duurzame visserij te bevorderen, en tegelijkertijd echte voordelen bieden voor vissers, verwerkers en consumenten?
- Moet de aanpak vooral op het resultaat of juist meer op de middelen worden gericht?
De algemene doelstelling blijft echter een waarlijk communautaire aanpak van de milieukeurregelingen voor vis en visserijproducten die aansluit bij de beste praktijken op dit gebied. Daarnaast moet het sterke streven van de Gemeenschap naar duurzaamheid bij de vangst en het gebruik van vis worden bevestigd. Bij een dergelijke aanpak is ook de samenwerking met de visserijsector van essentieel belang om het gezamenlijke beheer van de visbestanden te bevorderen.
Volgens de Commissie is op dit moment de derde optie, namelijk het vaststellen van minimumvereisten voor vrijwillige milieukeurregelingen, per saldo de meest geschikte. Deze optie biedt genoeg flexibiliteit en is ook kostenefficiënt. Op deze manier kunnen passende maatregelen worden genomen voor een grotere duurzaamheid, en kan een geleidelijke aanpak worden gevolgd. Ook biedt de benaderingswijze de consument passende bescherming.
De Commissie verzoekt de Raad, het Europees Parlement en het Europees Economisch en Sociaal Comité om de in deze mededeling genoemde vraagstukken nader te bespreken. Aangezien de EER-leden groot belang bij deze kwestie hebben, moet ook met hen overleg worden gepleegd om een gezamenlijke aanpak te garanderen. Bovendien is de Commissie voornemens de belanghebbenden te raadplegen, hoofdzakelijk via het Raadgevend Comité voor visserij en aquacultuur, en tegelijkertijd wetenschappelijk en technisch ondersteunend werk te doen. Dit moet ruimere kennis opleveren waarmee de discussie kan worden gevoed en die, zo nodig, kan worden gebruikt als basis voor effectbeoordelingen.
Eventueel zal de Commissie na afloop van het debat over deze mededeling passende wetgevingsvoorstellen indienen.
ANNEX I
General aspects on eco-labelling
1. How Eco-labelling schemes work
The International Standard Organisation (ISO) distinguishes between three types of environmental labels and declaration. Eco-labelling schemes fall under type I - environmental labelling (ISO 14024). These are voluntary programs, designed to reduce environmental effects by promoting market-driven demand for and supply of products which are verified by a third party. An eco-label should therefore indicate that an independent person or organisation has verified that the product meets a set of meaningful and consistent standards for environmental protection. Type II - self-declared environmental claims (ISO 14021), which are made without independent third party certification, and type III - environmental declaration (ISO 14025) are not relevant in the current context.
Eco-labelling schemes involve three main procedural and institutional features: 1) the setting of a certification standard, 2) the accreditation of independent certifying bodies and 3) the certification that the product meets the required standard, all along the production and distribution chain. There are a number of possible options for the shaping of such a scheme, where each layer can be managed by public authorities, private entities or a combination of the two. In the fisheries sector, eco-labelling schemes have up to now been entirely managed by the private sector.
Eco-labelling schemes are well established in the industrial sector (for example textiles or detergents). They have been successful in raising awareness of the environmental impact of industrial activity. The Community’s own eco-label award scheme12 aims to promote industrial products which have the potential to reduce negative environmental impact, as compared to other products in the same product group. This scheme covers some 20 industrial product groups, but does not apply to food products, drink and medicines. A large variety of certification and eco-labelling schemes have also been developed in the forestry sector.
In the food sector, Community measures on organic production of agricultural products13 set out requirements on production, labelling and inspection. However, this has no connection with an eco-labelling scheme. In any event, products from wild animals such as game and fisheries products are excluded from the scope of the regulation.
Terms and definitions (from: Report of the FAO expert consultation on the development of international guidelines for eco-labelling of fish and fisheries products from marine capture fisheries, Rome, Italy, 14 – 17 October 2003)
- Accreditation: Procedure by which an authoritative body gives formal recognition that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks. (Based on ISO/IEC Guide 2: 1996, 12.11)
- Accreditation body: Body that conducts and administers an accreditation system and grants accreditation. (Based on ISO Guide 2, 17.2)
- Accreditation system: System that has its own rules of procedure and management for carrying out accreditation. (Based on ISO Guide 2, paragraph 17.1)
Note – Accreditation of certification bodies is normally awarded following successful assessment and is followed by appropriate surveillance.
- Certification: Procedure by which a third party gives written or equivalent assurance that a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements. Certification may be, as appropriate, based on a range of inspection activities which may include continuous inspection in the production chain. (Based on ISO Guide 2, 15.1.2 and Principles for Food Import and Export Certification and Inspection, CAC/GL 20)
- Certification body: Body that conducts certification. A certification body may oversee certification activities carried out on its behalf by other bodies. (Based on ISO Guide 2, 15.2)
- Chain of Custody: The concept that all relevant steps in the production chain have been inspected or certified as appropriate and that a system of tracking of certified products is in place. (Based on IFOAM. 2002. IFOAM Accreditation Criteria for bodies certifying organic production and processing)
- Life cycle approach: A methodology considering environmental impacts associated with any phase of the product life from the delivery or generation of natural resources to the final disposal", including use and disposal of the product. The extent to which the life cycle is considered may vary depending on the type of environmental label or declaration, the nature of the claim and the product category. (based on ISO 14021) The life cycle approach is not considered applicable with regard to eco-labelling for fisheries products
- Standard: Document approved by a recognized organization or arrangement, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, with which compliance is not mandatory under international trade rules. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method. (Based on TBT agreement, Annex 1, para.2)
- Standard-setting organization or arrangements : Organization or arrangement that has recognized activities in standardization. (Based on ISO Guide 2, paragraph 4.3)
7. Eco-labelling schemes in the fisheries sector
Minimum labelling requirements such as country of origin, wild/harvested fish, health standards or other regulatory measures in respect of product quality have nothing to do with eco-labelling requirements and consequently are not envisaged hereafter.
7.1. The "Dolphin-safe/Dolphin-friendly" labelled tuna
The terms “dolphin-safe/dolphin-friendly” are used by both the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme (AIDCP)14 and by a programme promoted by the Earth Island Institute15.
The dolphin-safe certification of the AIDCP gives access to the voluntary use of a “dolphin-safe” certificate or label for tuna caught without any mortality or serious injury to dolphins in the course of the fishing operations. The Earth Island Institute system sets even stricter criteria. It is based on the 1990 US Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, which prevents tuna sold in the US from being labelled as "dolphin-safe" if the tuna is caught with purse seine nets. These nets are used with the intention of chasing and encircling dolphins which tend to congregate above schools of tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. A first attempt to ease the US law in 1999 was challenged in court by Earth Island Institute. In December 2002, the attempt to amend the US law to meet the AIDCP requirements was again challenged in the US courts by some NGOs, who consider the AIDCP measures not to be stringent enough.
Although “dolphin-safe/dolphin-friendly” labelling started out as a technical regulation, it has changed the market profoundly. Today there are many privately labelled tins of tuna. with such labelling becoming the norm in certain markets and sometimes leads to confusion. A WWF survey in 8 European countries identified no less than 26 different claims.
This has obvious consequences on the international tuna market, as tuna which is not labelled "dolphin-safe" is no longer accepted in some countries and therefore has to find other trade outlets. The “dolphin-safe” label bars tuna caught in accordance with AIDCP measures from access to the US markets. This has given rise to an ongoing dispute between Mexico and US.
The Community supports the voluntary AIDCP Dolphin Safe Certification scheme. After the implementation of the Tuna Tracking System16, the question is whether and how to implement the AIDCP certification scheme at Community level.
7.2. The Marine Stewardship Council eco-labelling scheme
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), jointly created in 1997 by Unilever and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), has launched a large private eco-labelling initiative that assesses the environmental impact of fishing17. The MSC has established general principles and criteria, which are used to assess individual stocks eligible for certification.
The process of developing the MSC principles has shown that there exist reserves on the side of developing countries, countries that fear that their products may be excluded from developed country markets. In its Annual Report of 2003, the MSC refers to a Member State of the Community and states that “fisheries wishing to engage with the MSC programme are eligible for grants” from the Member State concerned. This information has reinforced the concerns of developing countries which consider this to be a discriminatory measure, preventing free access to eco-labelling schemes.
Species concerned:
- Certified fisheries (as on 31.07.2004): Burry Inlet cockles (EU), South African hake, Thames herring (EU), New Zealand hoki, Mexican Baja California red rock lobster, Western Australian rock lobster, South West mackerel handline fishery (EU), Loch Terridon nephrops (EU), Alaska salmon, South Georgia toothfish
- Fisheries undergoing assessment: Bering Sea and Aleutian Island Pacific Cod - Freezer Longline; Chilean Industrial Hake Fishery; US Pacific Halibut Alaska, Washington and Oregon; Pacific Halibut Bristish Columbia, Canada; North Sea herring ; Hastings Fishing Fleet Pelagic Fishery Mackerel and Herring; Australian Mackerel Icefish; Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska pollock fisheries; Lake Hjälmaren Pikeperch; Net fishery; Sablefish fishery; Lakes and Coorong fisheries, South Australia (Mulloway, Cockle, Golden perch, Yellow-eyed mullet); British Columbia Salmon fishery; Hastings Fishing Fleet Dover Sole Fishery
7.3. The "Arrangement for the Voluntary Certification of Products of Sustainable Fishing" by the Nordic Council
In 2000, a technical working group of the Nordic Council of Ministers developed criteria for an environmental label based on an assessment of the sustainability of the fisheries. The report, as adopted in August 200118, identified a number of verifiable criteria that concentrate on the process of fisheries management by the public authorities. No fisheries have been certified to date. At the international level, the Nordic Council has initiated a debate on establishing international eco-labelling guidelines in the FAO.
7.4. Other private "logos" present on the market
Unilever Fish Sustainability Initiative
http://www.unilever.com/environmentsociety/sustainability/fish/
This Unilever program aims at guiding their internal selection of sources of whitefish supply. Fisheries have been classified from "sustainable" to "not sustainable" according to 5 criteria, each criteria being quoted by a green/orange/red light system.
Carrefour - Logo “Pêche responsable”
Carrefour's own claim to be used on Icelandic cod as from September 2004 (announcement at Seafood International exhibition, May 2004)
7.5. Other considerations
In parallel to the development of eco-labelling schemes, certain supermarket chains have committed themselves to restrict their supply of fish to sustainable fisheries. They have started to develop and join certification programs to this end. In addition to that, some others have even decided not to offer fish for sale at all.
On the other hand, it may be assumed that consumer interest in environmentally -friendly products could contribute to a growing market for fisheries products. It remains difficult to quantify the demand for eco-labelled products, as recent studies show certain limits in this regard. In a recent study in the US, the interrogated consumers indicated a preference for eco-labelled products; in contrast to that, an analysis of the shopping basket showed that the price was the first criterion of choice. In other terms, the success of an eco-labelling scheme would depend, at least in part, on the additional costs which it carries with it. Moreover, consumer interest varies from country to country, depending on market peculiarities and public perception of the concept of sustainability.
ANNEX II
Minimum requirements for eco-labelling schemes for fishery products
1. Precise, objective and verifiable criteria
The certification standard should rest on precise, objective and verifiable criteria and, where possible, be based on international standards.
Eco-labelling schemes should deliver what they promise and not promise what they cannot deliver. The award of the eco-label should be based on certification standards and criteria that guarantee that the product meets the claims made. Criteria must be objective and precise, in order to forestall allegations of subjectivity. Criteria must also be verifiable, i.e. they must reflect measurable elements, and be monitored by way of appropriate and recognised indicators. A criterion that “the fishery is conducted in a sustainable manner”, without any further objective parameters, would be obviously difficult to verify. On the other hand, requiring that "the fishery is subject to a management plan based on the precautionary approach" and indicating the specific features of the management plan that are required under the precautionary approach would be objective, precise and verifiable. Using "effort stays below FMSY" as a criterion is even more stringent and would allow for more precise measurement of the achievements of the scheme.
Furthermore, certification standard and criteria should be subject to appropriate and participatory consultation of interested parties. Finally, wherever relevant international standards and/or generally accepted standards for the conservation and management of living marine resources exist, they should be used as a reference-point for eco-labelling criteria. One such reference-point is the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
8. Independent assessment and chain of custody
Eco-labelling schemes should be based on independent assessment and ensure the accurate identification of the product throughout the chain, “from the net to the plate”. Appropriate procedures, including appeal and complaint procedures, should be in place.
In order to protect consumers and the fishing industry, an eco-labelling scheme should be reliable and credible. To this end, the standard-setting body, the accreditation body and the certification bodies should be independent from one another. Without a proper separation of their respective responsibilities, the independence and integrity of eco-labelling schemes cannot be guaranteed. Accreditation and certification bodies and their respective procedures should also comply with the relevant international ISO standards.
In practice, eligibility for an eco-label has to be assessed against the relevant certification standard by independent certifying bodies. The certification process should be based on a clear assessment procedure and should cover both the fishery and the post-harvest chain so that eco-labelling can be seen to be fair to all producers and provide credible guarantees for the consumer. A chain of custody would then have to be constructed by a description of the technical means which ensure adequate traceability all the way through to the final consumer..
Where levels of performance are set, either for a fisheries management system, a fish stock or a fishing vessel, they should be capable of being adequately monitored. After the initial assessment, and in order to uphold the credibility of the scheme for consumers and its economic benefits for fishermen, there should be a regular evaluation to verify that the product continues to meet the requirements and to ensure a regular validation of the criteria used.
9. Open access
Eco-labelling schemes should not discriminate in terms of access to the certification process.
With regard to international trade, eco-labelling schemes should in no case lead to a distortion of trade or competition. Such schemes should not be unfairly discriminatory as to which fisheries, which vessels or which products are eligible for certification. Eco-labelling schemes should be open to all products marketed within the Community, whatever their provenance, in order to comply with the Community’s WTO obligations under the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. They should not discriminate between domestic goods and imports, or between products from different trading partners.
Developing countries contribute substantially to the Community’s supplies of fish and fisheries products. The use of eco-labelling schemes could thus be an additional opportunity for them to get added value for their products. Special arrangements and technical and financial assistance would allow them to participate in such schemes. Fisheries Partnership Agreements could be appropriate vehicles to this end.
Consideration must also be given to the potential difficulties that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) could encounter in acceding to eco-labelling schemes. Stock assessment and criteria monitoring are often highly demanding in terms of data quantity and data quality. This implies significant costs, which may go beyond the means of SMEs. The Commission would therefore encourage the use of alternative, less data demanding, methods for stock assessment where SMEs are concerned. The schemes should however provide for equal guarantee of sustainability for the fisheries concerned.
Finally, it could also be the case that eco-labelling schemes already in operation encounter difficulties in complying with minimal requirements set. In such a case a reasonable delay should be foreseen for adaptation if ever needed.
10. Control of eco-labelling schemes
Eco-labelling schemes should be properly controlled, in order to ensure that they comply with the minimal requirements, that certification is satisfactory and that the information provided to consumers is accurate.
Adequate controls will reinforce the credibility of schemes for consumers and offer additional guarantees to the fishermen that the schemes are applied in an independent and non-discriminatory manner. The monitoring and control of the Common Fisheries Policy will provide elements which may also be of interest for the supervision of the scheme. This will be of particular importance in situations where the participants in a certified fishery fail to comply with applicable conservation and management measures.
11. Accurate information of the consumer
The certification standard used to award an eco-label should be available to the consumer. Product information at the point of sale should reflect the assessment undertaken.
It is essential that consumers know what an eco-labelling scheme stands for. The certification standard together with the criteria used should therefore be made available to consumers so that they can see for themselves what a given eco-labelling scheme represents. In addition, the information on the product at the point of sale should accurately reflect the certification standard. Without this, there would be a risk of misleading consumers about the real significance of eco-labels.
1Mededeling van de Commissie aan de Raad en het Europees Parlement - De toekomst van de markt voor visserijproducten in de Europese Unie: verantwoordelijkheid, partnerschap, concurrentievermogen. COM(1997)719 def. van 16 december 1997.
2Mededeling van de Commissie tot vaststelling van een actieplan van de Gemeenschap om milieubeschermingseisen in het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid te integreren.
COM(2002)186 def. van 28 mei 2002.
3Verordening (EG) nr. 2371/2002 van de Raad van 20 december 2002 inzake de instandhouding en de duurzame exploitatie van de visbestanden in het kader van het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid
(PB L 358 van 31.12.2002, blz. 59).
4Zie bijlage I voor definities, ervaringen op andere gebieden en technische bijzonderheden.
5Verordening (EG) nr. 1980/2000 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 17 juli 2000
inzake een herzien communautair systeem voor de toekenning van milieukeuren
(PB L 237 van 21.9.2000, blz. 1).
6Zie bijlage I-2 voor meer bijzonderheden.
7Verordening (EG) nr. 882/2003 van de Raad van 19 mei 2003 tot vaststelling van een regeling voor toezicht op en verificatie van tonijnvangsten. (PB L 127 van 23.5.2003, blz. 1)
8Verslag van de 23e vergadering van het Comité voor visserij (Rome, Italië, 15-19 februari 1999),
FAO Fisheries Report, nr. 595.
9Zie bijlage I-1.
10Document JOB(03)/130 van 27 juni 2003.
11Volgens artikel 3, onder e), van Verordening (EEG) nr. 2371/2002 van de Raad van 20 december 2002 inzake de instandhouding en de duurzame exploitatie van de visbestanden in het kader van het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid, wordt onder “duurzame exploitatie” verstaan “de exploitatie van een bestand op een zodanige wijze dat de toekomstige exploitatie van het bestand niet in gevaar wordt gebracht, en dat die exploitatie geen negatieve gevolgen heeft voor de mariene ecosystemen”.
12Council and European Parliament Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of 17 July 2000 on a revised Community eco-label award scheme (OJ L 237, 21.9.2000, p. 1).
13Council Regulation (EC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1).
14IATTC –Tuna tracking and AIDCP Dolphin Safe Certification
http://www.iattc.org/
Certification programme for tuna fished according to the procedures for AIDCP Dolphin Safe Tuna certification (last amended June 2004).
15Earth Island Institute - International Marine Mammal Project -“Dolphin safe” tuna:
http://www.earthisland.org/immp/
Certification programme for tuna fished according to the international “Dolphin safe” tuna standard, developed by Earth Island Institute.
16Council Regulation (EC) No 882/2003 of 19 May 2003 establishing a tuna tracking and verification system. (OJ L 127 , 23.5.2003, p. 1).
17http://www.msc.org
18“An arrangement for the Voluntary Certification of Products of Sustainable Fishing”, Nordic Technical Working Group on Fisheries Ecolabelling Criteria, Final Report, Copenhagen, June 21, 2000.
NL NL