Including NGOs in aquaculture certifications is key to preventing industry greenwash

Canadian shoppers care about sustainable seafood. More than two-thirds check for eco-labels, including certifications, at least some of the time. By preferentially choosing eco-labelled seafood products over ones without, shoppers place their trust in that eco-certification, its sustainability promise and the systems behind it. But it is who is included – or excluded – in those behind-the-scenes systems that make an eco-certification legitimate or a potential greenwash.

As advocates for environmental protection and social responsibility, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have a significant stake in certification decisions, provide invaluable expertise, local knowledge and oversight of industry. Likewise, for Indigenous peoples and other local communities. These stakeholders can grant legitimacy to a certification. When legitimacy is not granted, this can lead to public facing campaigns and criticisms. 

The three most prominent aquaculture eco-certifications, Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) and GLOBALG.A.P., act as authorities for defining farmed seafood sustainability. Their eco-labels can be found on farmed seafood such as Atlantic salmon, shrimp, basa and tilapia. Retailers often cite them in their sustainable seafood policies. Aquaculture companies become certified in hopes of gaining a social licence, market access and premium prices. 

SeaChoice’s latest report, Accountability in Seafood Sustainability: Improving the legitimacy of aquaculture certifications through better transparency and stakeholder inclusivity, reviewed the extent to which ASC, BAP and GLOBALG.A.P. are a product of and a platform for civil society stakeholder engagement. Here is some of what we found:

• All three certifications engage with civil society stakeholders in some form or another, though, some more so than others. At a basic level, each provides stakeholder consultation opportunities during the development and revision of their standard(s). But the opportunities differed when we looked at governance structures and farm audit processes.
• The GLOBALG.A.P. certification lacks civil society stakeholder representation on its standard-development and governance bodies. Instead industry members exclusively hold these positions. When eco-certifications instill a multi-stakeholder balance within their governance structures, they help ensure all opinions are fairly represented and considered. ASC and BAP includes civil society and industry stakeholders on their respective governance bodies. 
• It is an unfortunate truth that, globally, aquaculture operations often lack transparency and consultation – both from the industry and governments. Concerningly, our report found some auditing practices of the voluntary eco-certifications are no better. For example, consumers and civil society stakeholders won’t find any published audit reports to demonstrate a farm’s compliance with the BAP or GLOBALG.A.P. standards. In addition, both lack a requirement to consult with local stakeholders during farm audits. This means that valuable expertise and on-the-ground oversight, as well as local knowledge and concerns, are being ignored. In comparison, ASC certified farms are subjected to audits that include local stakeholder consultation and audit reports are published. 
• We also found that the ASC was the only aquaculture certification that has conducted and published a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) program. M&E programs are critical for demonstrating to all stakeholders how a scheme is performing against its stated theory of change or objectives (e.g., to improve the sustainability of aquaculture operators). 

In short, eco-certifications are less likely to be considered ‘greenwash’ if they have buy-in and support from civil society stakeholders. But obtaining such support means schemes need to be inclusive and transparent – or risk being seen as ‘the fox guarding the henhouse’.

So, should you continue to buy that eco-certified seafood? Generally speaking, yes. Another SeaChoice report found that independent eco-certification claims were more reliable and verifiable than self-declared environmental claims by companies. But no certification is perfect. This is why SeaChoice and other civil society groups advocate for improvements while calling out the egregious as necessary.

Nor is certification alone the only solution to fixing the problems of farmed seafood (or whichever commodity it is). Governments need to ensure stronger regulations while protecting sensitive habitats and species (such as the removal of open-net pen salmon farms from Canadian waters). Retailers and seafood companies need to make sure their supply chains are not contributing to environmental degradation and social harms (see Seafood Progress to view how your local supermarket performs). 

Finally, sometimes we don’t need to rely on eco-labels to tell us the best options for the health of our planet: recycled paper, electric vehicles, solar power. These are all better options in their commodity fields. Likewise, there are some farmed seafood options – such as shellfish and seaweed – that are inherently more sustainable regardless of whether or not they have a certified label. Moules frites, anyone?