The Integration of the National Ecolabel in Southeast Asia to Support

Asean Tuna Ecolabelling (ATEL)

Andre Notohamijoyo

, Martani Huseini

, Raldi H. Koestoer

and Syafril Fauzi

School of Environmental Science, University of Indonesia, FKG Building 5th and 6th Floor,

Jalan Salemba Raya, No. 4, Jakarta 10430, Indonesia

Faculty of Administrative Science, University of Indonesia, Kampus Baru UI Depok, Indonesia

Coordinating Ministry of Economic Affairs, Republic of Indonesia

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Jalan Medan Merdeka Timur No. 16, Jakarta 10110, Indonesia

Keywords: Integration of National Ecolabel, Sustainable Fisheries.

Abstract: The development of information technology has led to the growth of people's consumption patterns towards

fish not only in terms of health but also in sustainability. The lifestyle creates business opportunities in

fisheries ecolabel schemes. The trend was well utilized by various multinational companies which

collaborated with international NGO to form the scheme. Its face immense challenges in developing countries

because of some issues such as high costs and high requirement. Notohamijoyo (2018) shows that the scheme

could not be implemented in Indonesia from the stakeholder’s perspective. The ecolabel scheme needs a

special approach for tuna species (Thunnus sp), the highest economic value of fish in the world and highly

migratory species across the sea region. The effective management requires cross-country cooperation. The

Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has begun consolidation to start the regional system of

ecolabel which named ASEAN Tuna Ecolabelling (ATEL). This is the first regional seafood ecolabel scheme

in the world. The main difficulty in implementing the scheme is the integration of national ecolabel schemes

of ASEAN countries. The integration must be resolved by all ASEAN countries. If success, ATEL not only

develop as an effective scheme but also as a new regional brand of tuna.

1 INTRODUCTION

Tuna (Thunnus sp) as the highest economic value of

fish in the world and highly migratory species across

the sea region, faces the threat of the sustainability of

its resources. The poaching in various countries has

caused the threat to increase. World Bank and FAO

(2009) state that since 2006, 75 percent of global

fisheries resources face the threat of depletion or

reduced stock due to excessive fishing practices and

damage to the environment. These conditions

encourage a number of parties to encourage

mechanisms for controlling production and

sustainable consumption through environmental

labeling or ecolabelling.

The definition of ecolabel (Potts and Haward,

2007) is: Eco-labels are derived from certification

processes and are a market based approach that

attempts to influence consumer behaviour toward

fisheries products that are generated through

sustainable practices. Based on this definition,

ecolabel is a label that is stated on a product whose

entire production process is produced from activities

that meet environmental friendly parameters as

information to consumers or prospective consumers

when making a purchase.

The first fisheries ecolabel scheme that was formed

and the fastest growing was the Marine Stewardship

Council (MSC) in 1996 initiated by WWF and

Unilever. MSC follows the previous scheme for

forestry products under the name of the Forest

Stewardship Council (FSC). After MSC there are

several fisheries ecolabels after being formed such as

Japan Marine Ecolabel (MEL), Icelandic Responsible

Fisheries (IRF), Alaska RFM, Friends of the Sea

(FOS), Dolphin Safe, Marine Aquarium Council

(MAC) and others (Notohamijoyo, 2016).

Based on the literature studies conducted on:

Ramirez et al. (2012, a), Ramirez et al. (2012, b),

Bratt et al. (2011), Amstel et al. (2008) found that the

common constraints encountered in implementing

ecolabel certificates in developing countries are: the

credibility of ecolabel institutions, over-accessibility

especially for small fishermen, high certification

costs, lack of incentives for fishermen, different

fisheries structures and stakeholder support interests

Notohamijoyo, A., Huseini, M., Koestoer, R. and Fauzi, S.

The Integration of the National Ecolabel in Southeast Asia to Support Asean Tuna Ecolabelling (Atel).

DOI: 10.5220/0008434906510656

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Inclusive Business in the Changing World (ICIB 2019), pages 651-656

ISBN: 978-989-758-408-4

651

in each country.

Southeast Asia is the region which has the highest

tuna production in the word with 1.7 million tons

(FAO, 2014). Tuna is a highly migratory species and

swims across various countries. Effective tuna

management requires cross-country cooperation.

Association of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN)

start the cooperation in tuna fisheries management.

ASEAN formed ASEAN Tuna Working Group

(ATWG) as an institution of tuna fisheries

management cooperation in ASEAN (ATWG, 2011).

Indonesia was appointed as a lead of ATWG. This

organization aims to encourage cooperation among

ASEAN countries in the form of sustainable

management of tuna fisheries. The cooperation

expected to strengthen intra ASEAN regional and

international issues.

Indonesia initiates ASEAN Tuna Ecolabelling

(ATEL) in 2012 (ATWG, 2012). The initiative is

expected to be a tuna fisheries management solution

in the Southeast Asian sea area. Various cases of

illegal tuna fishing including slavery in the region

need to be resolved through cooperation between

ASEAN countries. The scheme was agreed on 11-12

October 2018 in Hanoi, Vietnam. ASEAN still have

homework in ATEL implementation. The challenge

is that some ASEAN countries have been

implemented ecolabel in their countries. The

integration will be the most important thing of ATEL

success.

2 PROBLEM FORMULATION

To implement ATEL as a regional fisheries ecolabel

scheme requires intensive coordination and

communication between ASEAN countries. Several

ASEAN countries have implemented ecolabel

schemes in their countries. The steps are needed to

unite ecolabel schemes between ASEAN countries to

realize ATEL. The integration is the key to the

success of its implementation.

3 RESEARCH METHODS

This research uses literature studies on the

implementation of ecolabel schemes in the Southeast

Asia region. The study was conducted in 5 ASEAN

countries, namely Malaysia, Indonesia, the

Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. This research

also reviews the ecolabel fisheries scheme in various

countries beside ASEAN. It is hoped that this study

can further explore the application of fisheries

ecolabel schemes in the world.

4 RESULT

The survey results show that in 5 ASEAN countries

there are ecolabel schemes that have been

implemented in the region. Ecolabel developed in

these five countries has different characters.

Indonesia and Malaysia have an ecolabel scheme

which is a government initiative, namely Eco-friendly

Ecolabel (Indonesia) and SIRIM Ecolabel

(Malaysia). While in the Philippines, Singapore and

Thailand, the ecolabel scheme comes from the

initiative of non-governmental organizations

(NGOs). This condition affects the integration of

ecolabel schemes from each of these countries.

The survey results show that in 5 ASEAN

countries there are ecolabel schemes that have been

implemented in the region. Ecolabel developed in

these five countries has different characters.

Indonesia and Malaysia have an ecolabel scheme

which is a government initiative, namely Ekolabel

Ramah Lingkungan (Indonesia) and SIRIM Ecolabel

(Malaysia). While in the Philippines, Singapore and

Thailand, the ecolabel scheme comes from the

initiative of non-governmental organizations

(NGOs). This condition affects the integration of

ecolabel schemes from each of these countries.

Table 4.1. show that there are 5 ASEAN countries

which already have national ecolabel scheme.

Therefore, the next steps is to integrate with ATEL

schemes in each of the ASEAN countries (Soeminto,

2011).

The process of integration between the five

ecolabel schemes will take time. The discussion of

each of the ecolabel initiators is the most difficult

step. Nevertheless, the official concept of the ATEL

scheme is a very good guide in the process.

Mechanism of work of ATEL can be developed areas

follows:

1. Establishment of the ASEAN Focal Point on

ASEAN Tuna Ecolabelling (AFP-ATEL);

2. Assignment of Focal Point of ATEL in each

country

3. Formulation of standards

4. Products that have passed and received a

national ecolabel certificate in each country may

apply to the AFP-ATEL to get ecolabel

certificate.

5. ATEL AFP Annual Meeting will discuss the

submission of application from each country

and considering the results of the verification

from Focal Point.

ICIB 2019 - The 2nd International Conference on Inclusive Business in the Changing World

652

Table 4.1: Various Ecolabel Scheme in ASEAN Countries.

Indonesia

Malaysia

Phillippines

Singapore

Thailand

Name of

Ecolabel

Ekolabel Ramah

Lingkungan

SIRIM Ecolabel

Green Choice

Green Label

Type of

Ecolabel

Type I

Issuing Body

Government

(Ministry of

Environment and

Forestry)

Government

(Ministry of

International Trade

and Industry)

NGO (The Phillippines

Center for Environ-

mental Protection and

Sustainable

Development)

NGO (Singapore

Environment

Council)

Thailand Business

Council for Sustainable

Development

(TBCSD)

Products

Covered

All Products

All Products not including

foods and pharmaceutical

Recent Product

Paper, woods,

palm oil

Industrial product

Agriculture, apparel,

civil engineering, etc

Building Material,

Cleaning product,

electrical, etc

All Products

Figure 4.1. Mechanism of

6. ATEL AFP Annual Meeting will endorse the su-

ccessful applicants to obtain a certificate ATEL

7. National ecolabel certificate agencies in each

country will oversee the implementation of

fisheries production practices in each of these

countries.

The mechanism of work of ATEL is described in

figure 4.1.

ATEL is expected to be a solution to the problem

of tuna fisheries in ASEAN. There are three

differences between ATEL and existing ecolabels are

as follows:

1. Existing ecolabel is market driven or controlled

by the retail market. ATEL certificate is

producer driven or controlled by the government

(ASEAN Focal Point-AFP)

2. Existing ecolabel based on market measurement

while ATEL more oriented to the integration of

sustainable fisheries management in Southeast

Asia.

3. Existing ecolabel create company branding

while ATEL not only the company but also

regional branding.

The differences are shown in table 4.2. below:

Table 4.2: The Differences between ATEL and existing

ecolabel.

Existing Ecolabels

ASEAN Tuna

Ecolabelling

Drivers

Market

Producer

Orientation

Market Measurement

based Certificate

Business

Integration of Sustainable

Fisheries Management in

ASEAN region

Type of

Branding

Company Branding

Regional Branding

Establishment of Focal Point

of ATEL

Assignment of Focal Point for

each AMS

Formulation of

Standards

Products that have passed

and received a national

ecolabel certificate in each

country may apply to the

AFP-ATEL via Focal Point

ATEL AFP Annual Meeting

will discuss the submission of

application

ATEL AFP Annual Meeting

will endorse the successful

applicants to obtain a

certificate ATEL

National ecolabel certificate

agencies in each country will

oversee the implementation

of fisheries production

practices in each of these

countries.

The Integration of the National Ecolabel in Southeast Asia to Support Asean Tuna Ecolabelling (Atel)

653

5 DISCUSSION

The compilation of the ATEL ecolabel scheme is an

embodiment of overall sustainable development.

Social, economic and ecological principles are used

as the basis for its preparation. This reinforces the

principles and standards of the scheme.

In order to a fishery can be certified, its practice

must be assessed using the following ATEL standards

(ATWG, 2014) as can be seen in Table 5.1.

In addition to the sustainable use of tuna fishery,

the fishing practices should be supported by

responsible social practices using following criteria

as presented in Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.1. Domain Standard, Principle and Criteria based on Sustainable Use Principle.

Standard

Principle

Criteria

1.1. The tuna fishery

stock must be

kept in a

sustainable level

1.1.1. Sustainability of the

target fish stock

Tuna fishing practices in the last three years showing that the

fishery has been sustainably managed. In minimum, the harvest

control rule advises that the catch follow the criteria such as SB current

> SB MSY or F current < F MSY

1.1.2. Fishery Management

Plan

Tuna fishery management plan is available and implemented. The

document should regulates and comply the fishing activities as advised

by RFMOs and sustainable fishery with precautionary approach

principles developed using robust scientific analysis

1.2. Healthy

ecosystem

1.2.1. Responsible fishing

gears

Fishing gears are regulated as advised by RFMOs and sustainable

fishery with precautionary approach principles developed using robust

scientific analysis

1.2.2. Restriction on

retaining the endangered,

threatened and protected

species

Regulations are available and implemented, as advised by RFMOs

and sustainable fishery with precautionary approach principles

developed using robust scientific analysis

1.2.3. Maintaining the

sustainability of non-

targeted species

Regulations are available and implemented, as advised by RFMOs

and sustainable fishery with precautionary approach principles

developed using robust scientific analysis

1.3. Tuna fishing

activity must

avoiding the

practice of Illegal,

Unreported and

Unregulated

fishery (IUU)

1.3.1. Tuna fishing have all

required license to operate

The company under assessment have all required license to catch

including the auxiliary gears (i.e. FAD, lamp), transport and process

the tuna

1.3.2. Tuna fishery practices

the free IUU catching and

processing documentation

Tuna catching implements recording scheme (e.g. Catch

Documentation Scheme, Catch Certificate as authorized by local

agency) and improved the traceability scheme

1.4. Tuna fishery is

managed

effectively

1.4.1. Tuna management

council is available and

operational

Tuna management council in each ASEAN member country is

optimally working to establish the management, monitoring,

surveillance and compliance

1.4.2. The fishery

management is conducted

collaboratively

Fishery management is implemented collaboratively, and

adaptively adopt inputs from the stakeholders

Table 5.2: Domain Standard, Principle and Criteria based on Social Practices Principle.

Standard

Principle

Criteria

a. Workers who work on

the production process

during Tuna fishing and

handling are free from

worker abuse

2.1.1. Workers who work on

the production process are

not victim of human trading

Domestic and foreign workers, must have a working contract

which binding the regulation between related countries

2.1.2. Workers who work on

the production process are

not children

Workers must reached its minimum age to work, as managed by

respective country and international regulations

b. Tuna fishery should

promote fair trade

2.2.1. Adopts a transparent

and accountable trading

practices

Companies related to the production process must implement a

transparent and accountable contract, as well as implement

trading and a good customer service

ICIB 2019 - The 2nd International Conference on Inclusive Business in the Changing World

654

The standards, principles and criteria of ATEL

have been prepared based on the principles of overall

sustainable development in terms of economic,

ecological and social aspects. This is a breakthrough

in a standard, principles and criteria for an ecolabel.

This is proof that ASEAN member countries are

aware of sustainable development to be applied

specifically in the management of tuna fisheries.

Until now there are no fisheries ecolabel schemes

which include social practices such as protection of

workers and fishermen.

The difficulty of ATEL is the integration of

ecolabel schemes in various ASEAN countries. Such

integration needs to be explored further regarding its

implementation in other countries. As the first

regional fisheries ecolabel scheme in the world,

ATEL does not have an example of another ecolabel

scheme. This is where integration between ecolabel

schemes in various ASEAN countries needs to be

done. ASEAN countries that do not yet have a scheme

can play a role in strengthening the standards,

principles and criteria of ATEL.

The support of government is a key of success for

the ecolabel scheme. The study of consumers

(Sonderskov and Daubjerg, 2010) in the US, UK,

Denmark and Sweden proved that ecolabelling can be

successful with substantial support or full

government support in all stages. The level of

consumer confidence in ecolabel products is

increasing with increasingly intense government

involvement.

Kvalvik et al. (2014) and Ramirez et al. (2012, a)

show that government commitment and stakeholder

support plays an important role in the successful

implementation of ecolabel certificates. The study in

Iceland also found the support from government to

national ecolabel scheme. The presence of

international ecolabel is considered to be an added

burden for the government and stakeholders in

fisheries in Iceland. The government is aware of this

and invites stakeholders together to formulate the best

steps to encourage the strengthening of Iceland's

fisheries brand on the international market. Both

parties realize that Iceland has a strong position in the

international market and needs to strengthen through

the re-branding of their fishery products.

Iceland succeeded in creating its own fisheries

ecolabel certification program called Icelandic

Responsible Fisheries (IRF). The emergence of the

IRF received a positive response from the market so

that products from Iceland experienced a

strengthening position in the international market due

to the re-branding.

The research from Notohamijoyo (2016) reinforce

the research that stakeholder and government support

are the main key to using the ecolabel scheme. Based

on the results, it was also found that the choice of

stakeholders in Indonesia was in the national ecolabel

scheme initiated by the government.

Research from Christian et al. (2013) show that

ecolabel scheme such as Marine Stewardship Council

(MSC) credibility is often questioned because MSC

does not strongly apply its principles so that there are

rejections from a number of countries. There is

dualism when MSC applies its principles. Provision

of labels that continue to run while there is a decline

in species in the certified area makes stakeholder

confusion in its implementation. Research by Kirby

et al. (2014) strengthen Christian's research results

that only ecolabel certification is strong and

consistent in applying the principles of sustainable

fisheries management that can be accepted by

stakeholders. Hadjimichael and Hegland (2016)

mention that the development of certain fisheries

ecolabel certification that can rapidly lead to a

monopoly on sustainable fisheries management.

Various studies have shown that government and

stakeholder support is the main key to the successful

implementation of an ecolabel scheme. Here is the

key to implementing ATEL. Government and

stakeholder support is expected to encourage the

integration of ecolabel schemes in all ASEAN

countries. The integration success will create the

management of tuna fisheries in the region.

6 CONCLUSION

Government and stakeholder support is a key word in

the success of ATEL implementation. The support of

the governments of each ASEAN country will

facilitate the process of integrating the tuna fisheries

ecolabel scheme. In addition cooperation between

ASEAN countries in pushing for the scheme will

encourage the birth of new brands for tuna fish

originating from the Southeast Asian sea area. The

implementation of ATEL is a manifestation of

sustainable tuna management and the promotion of

good ASEAN tuna brands.

REFERENCES

Amstel, Mariette van, Driessen, Peter and Glasbergen,

Pieter. (2008). Ecolabeling and information

asymmetry: a comparison of five eco-labels in the

The Integration of the National Ecolabel in Southeast Asia to Support Asean Tuna Ecolabelling (Atel)

655

Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production. 16, 263-

276.

ASEAN Tuna Working Group (ATWG). 2011. Report of

Meeting Minutes The 1

Meeting of ASEAN National

Focal Point of Tuna Working Group. Jakarta

ASEAN Tuna Working Group (ATWG). 2012. Report of

Meeting Minutes The 2

Meeting of ASEAN National

Focal Point of Tuna Working Group. Yogyakarta.

ASEAN Tuna Working Group (ATWG). 2014. Policy

Paper of ASEAN Tuna Ecolabelling. The 5

Meeting of

ASEAN Tuna Working Group

Bratt, Cecilia, Hallstedt, Sophie, K, H. Robèrt, Broman,

Göran, Oldmark, Jonas. (2011). Assessment of eco-

labelling criteria development from a strategic

sustainability perspective. Journal of Cleaner

Production. 19, 1631-1638.

Christian, Claire, Ainley, David, Bailey, Megan, Dayton,

Paul, Hocevar, John, LeVine, Michael, Nikoloyuk,

Jordan, Nouvian, Claire, Velarde, Enriqueta, Werner,

Rodolfo, Jacquet, L. Jennifer. (2013). A review of

formal objections to Marine Stewardship Council

fisheries certifications. Biological Conservation. 161,

10–17.

FAO & World Bank Report. (2009). “Sunken Billion: The

Economic Justification of Fisheries

Reform”.Washington D.C.

Food Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014. The State of

World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Opportunities and

challenges. Rome.

Hadjimichael, Maria, Hegland, J. Troels. 2016. Really

sustainable? Inherent risks of eco-labeling in fisheries.

Fisheries Research 174: 129–135

Kirby, Seán, David, Visser , Candice, Hanich, Quentin

(2014). Assessment of eco-labelling schemes for

Pacific tuna fisheries. Marine Policy. 43, 132–142.

Kvalvik, Ingrid, Noestvold, Bjoerg, Young, A. James.

2014. National or supranational fisheries sustainability

certification schemes? A critical analysis of Norwegian

and Icelandic responses, Marine Policy 46: 137-142

Notohamijoyo, Andre. 2016. The Implementation of

Sustainable Development Principles To Seafood

Ecolabel Certificate (Case Study of Marine

Stewardship Council Implementation Failures in

Indonesia). Dissertation. University of Indonesia.

Notohamijoyo, Andre. 2018. ASEAN tuna ecolabelling

(ATEL): the challenge and opportunity of the first

seafood regional ecolabelling in the world. E3S Web of

Conferences 74. 04004.

Potts, Tavis, Haward, Marcus. (2007). International Trade,

Eco-Labelling, And Sustainable Fisheries-Recent

Issues, Concepts And Practices. Environment,

Development and Sustainability. Springer. 9, 91–106.

Ramírez, Perez, Mónica, Ponce-Díaz, Germán, Lluch-Cota,

Salvador. (2012). The role of MSC certification in the

empowerment offishing cooperatives in Mexico: The

case of red rock lobster co-managed fishery. Ocean &

Coastal Management 63, 24-29.

Ramırez, Perez, Monica, Phillips, Bruce, Lluch-Belda,

Daniel, Lluch-Cota, Salvador. (2012). Perspectives for

implementing fisheries certification in developing

countries. Marine Policy 36: 297–302.

Sonderskov, Kim Mannemar, Daubjerg, Carsten. (2010).

Ecolabelling, the state and consumer confidence.

Political Studies Association Annual Conference.

Suminto. (2011). Kajian Penerapan Ekolabel Produk di

Indonesia. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan

Standarisasi BSN. Jurnal Standardisasi Vol. 13, No. 3:

201 - 206

ICIB 2019 - The 2nd International Conference on Inclusive Business in the Changing World

656