Tuna Wars pp 305-316 | Cite as

Eco-claims for Sustainable Tuna

  • Steven Adolf


At the end of the twentieth century private tools emerged and were applied in the market alongside the public one to achieve more sustainable tuna fishing. It fitted the Zeitgeist of an era of retracting governments and growing importance of the market [175]. The idea was that the market was able to design a self-regulating principle which would ultimately succeed in serving the sustainable consumer through certification and proprietary labels. Judging by the number of certificates, eco-labels can be called an unequivocal success. When you look at a can of tuna in the supermarket, study the packaging of frozen tuna or even read the wrapper around fresh (or thawed) tuna, you encounter various labels for the sustainability certification programmes for tuna. Some with credibility, even backed by a extensive chain of custody, others purely fictitious. The labels serve consumer power driven by demand, providing them with a tool to steer the global value chain towards sustainable fishing. You can choose what you eat. Meanwhile the system is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. There are so many different labels that consumers have lost track of what they stand for. A brief inventory.


  1. 175.
    Mol A (2008) Bringing the environmental state back in: partnerships in perspective. In: Glasbergen P, Biermann F, Mol A (eds) Partnerships, governance and sustainable development. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  2. 209.
    Roheim C, Bush S, Asche F et al (2018) Evolution and future of the sustainable seafood market. Nat Sustain 1:392–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2.
    Adolf S, Bush S, Vellema S (2016) Reinserting state agency in global value chains: the case of MSC certified skipjack tuna. Fish Res 182:79–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 104.
    Froese R, Proelss A (2012) Evaluation and legal assessment of certified seafood. Mar Policy 36:1284–1289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 213.
    Sampson G, Sanchirico J, Roheim C et al (2015) Secure sustainable seafood from developing countries. Science 348:504–506. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 247.
    United States (2015) U.S. loses WTO appeal in Mexican tuna dispute. In: U.S. Reuters. Accessed 30 Nov 2018
  7. 169.
    Miller A, Bush S (2015) Authority without credibility? Competition and conflict between ecolabels in tuna fisheries. J Clean Prod 107:137–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 86.
    Europêche (2015) Europêche position on tuna FAD free commercialisation. In: Accessed 30 Nov 2018
  9. 13.
    Atuna (2015) Authorities: “FAD-Free” declarations are illegal. In: Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  10. 144.
    IPNLF (2018) International pole and line foundation. In: Accessed 2 Dec 2018
  11. 143.
    Infofish (2016) ISSF adopts and amends tuna conservation measures. In: Accessed 2 Jan 2019
  12. 181.
    OPAGAC (2017) OPAGAC receives the first AENOR responsible tuna fishing (APR) certificates in the world. In: Accessed 3 Jan 2019
  13. 148.
    IUU Watch (2018) EU carding decisions. In: IUU Watch. Accessed 2 Dec 2018
  14. 80.
    EJF, Oceana, PEW, WWF (2016) The EU IUU regulation: building on success. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. 145.
    ISEAL Alliance (2018) ISEAL is the global membership association for credible sustainability standards. In: Accessed 7 Dec 2018
  16. 121.
    GSSI (2018) Global sustainable seafood initiative. In: Accessed 7 Dec 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Adolf
    • 1
  1. 1.AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations