Keywords

1 Introduction: The Project of IUCN About Feed in Sustainable Aquaculture

The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) is involved inter alia in the reflexion about the development of aquaculture. The IUCN has been in charge in 2014–2015 of a project about “Feed for sustainable aquaculture”, funded by the French Directorate for Fisheries & Aquaculture. The project is a multi-stakeholder project, as two workshops gathered numerous experts from private and public sectors. The project has been managed by a steering committee including CIPA (interprofessional body for fish culture) and SNIA/SPPA (syndicates of feed producers).

The output of the project is a report presenting the conclusions of the workshops, including chapters on peculiar points (by different authors), and proposing recommendations. One chapter presents the analysis of the certification schemes aiming at sustainable aquaculture, in the specifications they define for feed and feeding in aquaculture farms, and we present here the main findings.

1.1 Certification in Aquaculture

Globally, the certification programs concerning fishery and aquaculture products have grown considerably in the past two decades, either by using existing devices in agrifood sector, either, and widely, by inventing some new devices. The goals are to provide a guarantee on compliance with specifications on production (sometimes extended in the value chain, upstream to feed, or downstream to processing and retail), to improve product promotion, and to create a market segmentation.

The certification is defined by ISOFootnote 1 as a “the provision by an independent body of written assurance (a certificate) that the product, service or system in question meets specific requirements”. Audits performed by an independent, third party and accredited certification body provide the highest guarantee. But note that we also find in aquaculture audits by a “first party”, so self-checking its own specifications drawn up by a company or group of companies, and audits by a “second party” of specifications prepared by a customer or NGOs, done by their controllers, and some of these programs based on audits by first or second parties are included in reports on “labels and certifications” in aquaculture (Ababouch Washington 2011). Nevertheless, the third party certification brings the highest level of guarantee.

An additional difficulty in this still new and changing field is a lack of stabilized vocabulary and translations, which is source of errors or misunderstandings. For the remainder of this writing, the word “label” will be considered as “expression of a certification on the product packaging.”

In aquaculture, certification schemes (or “quality-initiatives”, “quality schemes”, “labels”) have various goals and a variety of settings: certification of origin (e.g. Protected Designation of Origin -PDO-, Protected Geographical Indication -PGI-, following 1992 EU regulation), certification of a particular quality (e.g.“Label Rouge” i.e. the French label for a product of superior quality, “Irish quality Schemes” for several aquaculture species), certification of sustainable or responsible aquaculture (Aquaculture Stewardship Council -ASC-, Best aquaculture Practices of Global Aquaculture Alliance -BAP GAA-, Friend of the Sea -FoS-), certification of organic aquaculture (standards issued by government, as the EU standard, or standards issued by private organizations as Krav, Debio, Naturland, etc.), certification providing guarantees about sanitary quality (specifications of large retailers’ groups such as Global-GAP, International Feature Standard -IFS-, British Retail Consortium -BRC-), certification of a national standard by the government or by professional organizations (“Aquaculture of our regions” of the French professional organization CIPA, Thai Quality Shrimp…). However, the specifications can combine various objectives and the creation of a typology by goal is not obvious.

Another typology can be made according to the type of organization initiating the program: a professional aquaculture sector (e.g. FEAP, CIPA, APROMAR…), the public authorities (e.g. organic aquaculture in the EU), some retailers (individually or as a group, e.g. GlobalGAP), some NGOs (e.g. ASC).

This set is difficult to understand because of its abounding and very changing nature. For more information, the interested reader can refer to the bibliography, including reports and information from international organizations (FAO 2011; IUCN  2009; Globefish news and reports). From a producer perspective, particularly in developing countries, the reports underline the difficulty of access to certification programs in the case of highly demanding specifications or because of the cost of audits for producers. So the complexity of the certification process acts as a barrier for small producers, especially in developing countries, except through groupings of small producers, when that organization is accepted by the certification program.

Analysis of this set also highlights the wide variety of certification programs and the difficulty of comparing, with a risk of confusion for the consumer. Interestingly, initiatives are underway to propose a framework for comparison, such as the Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative (GSSI) reported by Globefish (2015).

1.2 Certification of Sustainable Aquaculture

The area of certification programs to be considered is not obvious, for the reasons outlined above. In addition, as for sustainability, this criterion may appear secondarily in a program that did not explicitly focus on it, such is the case today of some Label Rouge for salmon.

This review focuses on four certification programs with international scope, which explicitly aim at sustainable or responsible aquaculture: BAP- GAA, GlobalGAP, FoS and ASC. The analysis focuses on how the food sustainability is taken into account in these four major programs, and provides a brief overview of the specifications for organic aquaculture and the Red Label.

1.3 Organic Aquaculture, Label Rouge and Feeding

In the EU, the regulation for organic aquacultureFootnote 2 specifies that feed must cover the nutritional needs according to each aquaculture species and according to their stages of development. Marine raw materials must come from sustainable exploitation of fish stocks.Footnote 3 Other raw materials must come from organic farming or, for non-agricultural products, be natural products allowed (mentioned in a positive list). Growth promoters and synthetic amino acids are prohibited. Subsequent regulations specify certain points, introducing adjustments to the needs of species or groups.Footnote 4

This brief review shows the spirit of the inclusion of feed in the definition of organic aquaculture in the EU. It also illustrates the existence of periodic changes in this context. Organic aquaculture (“organic aquaculture”) globally represents a very diverse set of private and public programs, which analysis is currently underway in the European program ORAQUA (http://www.OrAqua.eu/).

Another important certification for aquaculture in France, the Label Rouge (i.e. Red Label) deserves a mention. It is part of the official French device of Identifying Signs of Quality and Origin, managed by the INAO.Footnote 5 This device combines a third party certification (by an accredited certification body) and a guarantee by a public device. The Label Rouge is based on a stndard defining the production conditions for a product of superior quality in its market. There is therefore no question of a priori guarantee of sustainability. However, we note that some Label Rouge in salmon farming mention a sustainability goal on their websites presenting the main points of the specifications (not publicly available in full version). For the Label Rouge Scottish Salmon LA No 33/90, it is mentioned that producers are engaged in a process of sustainability and environmental preservation. The specifications precise that the feed includes exclusively marine raw materials, vegetable ingredients, vitamins, minerals and carotenoids. For Atlantic salmon Label Rouge LA No 31/05, it is emphasized that the farming is done in a “selected marine farm respecting environment” and the specifications stipulates that feed does not contain any products from land animal or GMOs (in the maximum limit of accidental contamination of 0.9%).

2 Presentation of the Four Certification Programs for Sustainable or Responsible Aquaculture, with International Scale

Created since 2000 or even very recently, these programs are based on a third-party certification, and differ by several aspects (see Table 30.1). BAP-GAA and ASC aim explicitly at responsible aquaculture, FoS at sustainable aquaculture, and GlobalGAP has a set of goals that include environmental and social components of sustainability.

Table 30.1 Main characteristics of four certification programs for responsible or sustainable aquaculture, with international scope
Full size table

It may be noted that these certification programs have different genesis:

  • BAP-GAA is a program launched in 2000 by GAA (non-profit organization, or NGO) by stakeholders of the aquaculture sector (scientists, technicians, producers),

  • GlobalGAP was created by a consortium of European distributors (GlobalGAP, formerly EurepGAP) for all agriculture and since 2004 includes an application to aquaculture,

  • FoS is an NGO that has developed a certification program for sustainable fisheries, then in 2006, for sustainable aquaculture,

  • ASC is a non-profit organization or NGO, created in 2010 by WWF and IDH (Dutch Sustainable Trade Initiative) to manage the standards issued from the multi-stakeholders Aquaculture Dialogues launched by WWF.

The procedures of these certifications are also different: ASC, BAP/GAA and FoS are certifications of the type B to CFootnote 6 with visible logo by the consumer, while GlobalGAP is of type B to B,Footnote 7 not visible to the consumer. They work on their own standards, developed either by species or generically for a set of species or any species, and standards are evolving in content and structure (for example, ASC launched in December 2014 a project to create a common standard, instead of 8 existing standards).

These certifications have different economic importance, but we see very strong growth currently for the number of farms and concerned products, notably for ASC and BAP–GAA. So today there is a strong competition to find farms to be certified, internationally (Table 30.1).

It is also interesting to note that these programs are changing, and tend to harmonize since 2013, with the signing of successive agreements of collaboration and exchange. As for feed in aquaculture, the “ASC Responsible Feed Project” launched by ASC from 2013 to 2015 is a comprehensive work on sustainable aquaculture feed, with a steering committee multi- agencies, and 5 technical working groups involving GAA and GlobalGAP.

3 Consideration of Feed in the Standards of Four Certification Programs for Sustainable or Responsible Aquaculture

The analysis of standards of the four certification programs reveals a convergence in objectives: supplies traceable and responsible/sustainable for raw materials, reduction of the use of fish meal and fish oil from dedicated fisheries. The main available features about feed are summarized in Table 30.2.

Table 30.2 Feed and feeding in four certification programs for responsible or sustainable aquaculture, with international scope—analysis of public standards (as available on internet by December 2014)
Full size table

In the manufacture of feed and for traceability on raw materials, these organizations rely heavily on additional certification programs: specific programs for BAP-GAA and GlobalGAP (program CFM for Compound Feed Manufacturers); and for FoS, an own feed certification program or IFFO RS certification program.Footnote 8

For fishmeal and fish oils, ASC ruled out the use of fish or by-products issued from species on the IUCN Red List or from illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries (IUUF); and requires, within five years after the publication of the ASC concerned standard, that marine raw materials are issued from sources certified under a standard member of the ISEAL.Footnote 9 Alliance (example MSC.Footnote 10). Before reaching this goal, supplies of marine raw materials must meet the conditions of sustainability indicators (FishSource scores).Footnote 11

For vegetable raw materials, ASC requires soybeans certified by RTRS (RoundTable on Responsible Soy) and palm oil certified by RSPO (Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil).

Regarding the use of potentially GM raw materials, there is no announced exclusion (except for FoS in a 2009 document). It was noted in ASC standards a compulsory declaration of presence for GMO raw materials at a concentration greater than 0.9%, and in GlobalGAP standards, a necessary verification of the presence of GMO material in a concentration greater than 1% in the final feed.

In terms of feeding practices, feed efficiency is sought by all, both for the savings of raw materials and for reducing environmental impact. This concerns in particular fish meal and fish oil. Thus, farms are required to do follow-ups of amounts of feed used, and to calculate indicators on the use of fish meal and fish oil or on feed efficiency (Table 30.2).

4 Discussion and Perspectives

The analysis of available standards shows the diversity of the means employed by several organizations for displayed similar objectives, but does not allow to fully apprehending it. The opening since 2013 of collaboration between GlobalGAP, ASC and BAP - GAA for a partial pooling on the audit phase, provides details for this comparison. The diagram (Fig. 30.1) of the initial inventory of the criteria for selection of fish meal and fish oil, for the three organizations, shows limited common share (traceability, absence of endangered species from the IUCN Red List, and preferably suppliers with responsible sourcing), but shows also important differences, ASC having the highest requirements.

Fig. 30.1
figure 1

Source Anon (2013)

Requirements for sourcing of fishmeal and fish oil for BAP/GAA, ASC & GlobalG.A.P.

Full size image

It is noted that fish meal and fish oil are the only ingredients for which was conducted an important work about sustainability. Conversely, it must question how the raw materials other than fish meal and fish oil, increasingly used in fish feed, will be evaluated from the perspective of sustainability. Beyond the need for responsible/sustainable supply, the plant ingredients are not specifically addressed by ASC, which for soybeans and palm oil, uses existing certification schemes in these important sectors. This movement could be developed, including other raw materials to the extent that certification of sustainable sources do exist, which is not the case for most raw materials used in animal feed.

5 Conclusion

The rise of certification programs for sustainable or responsible aquaculture is an important phenomenon. As for feed and feeding, the criteria included in the certifications at first focused sustainability of fisheries for fish meal and fish oils. However the increasing use of other raw materials in aquafeed, particularly plant raw materials, greatly expands the range of sectors whose sustainability must be assessed, through the use of existing specific certification programs, when they exist. It thus draws a system of certification programs used for the certification of sustainable aquafeed, bringing aquaculture in a much larger universe, that of animal feed industry and the connected agriculture supply chains, where aquaculture has a minor weight until today.

Through this paper about feed in certification programs for sustainable aquaculture is coming out a highly difficult question: where are the poles of decision for the conditions of aquaculture production, and definition of sustainability?

In addition to the regulatory framework, it appears that certification programs create an additional framework, even if it is voluntary. Internationally, the growing weight of private certification programs coming from Western organizations is widely criticized, particularly for two reasons (Bush et al. 2013):

  • even if it is a response to a weak government involvement in the definition and regulation of sustainable aquaculture, today there is an imbalance of power between private and public sectors in the definition of sustainability,

  • for Developing Countries, there is a form of interference and the risk of abuse of power, from organizations from Developed Countries.

Moreover, the development of aquaculture certification brings the aquaculture sector to a situation already well-known in the agricultural sector: a growing framing of the act of production by external devices. In particular, we see how the feed for sustainable aquaculture, due to an increasing use of new raw materials, will be dependent on pre-established certifications for these ingredients.

This situation rises also question of governance, at national and international levels, for defining what is feed for sustainable aquaculture, and how standards could be defined in a more balanced way, involving not only private organizations, but actors from aquaculture sector, and public authorities.