Visit https://ebooknice.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

(Ebook) Aquaculture: Responsible Practices and

Certification by IUCN ISBN 9782831712178, 2831712173

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebooknice.com/product/aquaculture-responsible-
practices-and-certification-33318928

Explore and download more ebooks at ebooknice.com

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!

(Ebook) Module 07A For B1 Certification. Maintenance Practices

https://ebooknice.com/product/module-07a-for-b1-certification-
maintenance-practices-36148858

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles, James

ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492, 1459699815,
1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Aquaculture: Principles and Practices (Fishing News Books) by

T. V. R. Pillay, M. N. Kutty ISBN 9781405105323, 1405105321

https://ebooknice.com/product/aquaculture-principles-and-practices-
fishing-news-books-1356644

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture by

Craig S. Tucker, John A. Hargreaves ISBN 9780813820279, 0813820278

https://ebooknice.com/product/environmental-best-management-practices-
for-aquaculture-1202690

ebooknice.com
(Ebook) Feed and Feeding Practices in Aquaculture (Woodhead Publishing
Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition) by Davis, D Allen
ISBN 9780081005064, 0081005067

https://ebooknice.com/product/feed-and-feeding-practices-in-
aquaculture-woodhead-publishing-series-in-food-science-technology-and-
nutrition-54942782
ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Primary Mathematics 3A by HOERST ISBN 9789810185046,

9810185049

https://ebooknice.com/product/primary-mathematics-3a-33552624

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the

IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 20-24 June 2005, Seattle,
Washington, USA (IUCN Species Survival Commission Occasional Paper) by
Jon Aars, Nicholas J. Lunn, Andrew E. Derocher ISBN 9782831709598,
2831709598
https://ebooknice.com/product/polar-bears-proceedings-of-the-14th-
working-meeting-of-the-iucn-ssc-polar-bear-specialist-
group-20-24-june-2005-seattle-washington-usa-iucn-species-survival-
commission-occasional-paper-1355568
ebooknice.com

(Ebook) SAT II Success MATH 1C and 2C 2002 (Peterson's SAT II Success)

by Peterson's ISBN 9780768906677, 0768906679

https://ebooknice.com/product/sat-ii-success-
math-1c-and-2c-2002-peterson-s-sat-ii-success-1722018

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Laços de afeto - 3a Ed. by Wanderley Oliveira ISBN

9788563365552, 856336555X

https://ebooknice.com/product/lacos-de-afeto-3a-ed-50394824

ebooknice.com
Aquacul
tur
e:

Res
pons ibl
ePracti
ces
andCert
ifi
cat
ion

Gui
defort
heSus
tai
nab
le

3 De
Me
Aq
u
v
e
d
a
l
i
t
e
c
o
p
r
u
me
r
a
l
tu
n
e
r
e
n
a
t
o
n
f
Aquaculture:

Responsible Practices
and Certification

Guide for the Sustainable

3 Development of
Mediterranean
Aquaculture
The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on
the part of IUCN, the Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (MARM) or the European Federation of Aquaculture producers
(FEAP) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, the Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs
or the European Federation of Aquaculture Producers (FEAP).

This publication has been made possible in part by funding from the Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain in collaboration with the Spanish Ministry of the
Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs and the European Federation of Aquaculture Producers
(FEAP).

With the collaboration of the European Bureau for Conservation and Development.

Copyright: © 2009 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized

without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior
written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: IUCN (2009). Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture 3. Aquaculture
Responsible Practices and Certification. Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain: IUCN. VI+70 pp.

NIPO: 770-09-208-7

ISBN: 978-2-8317-1217-8

Legal Deposit:

Layout: Factor Ñ

Cover photo: © Apromar + Antonio Belmonte Ríos

Product Management by: Sandra Simoes Rubiales

Produced by: IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation

Printed by: Solprint, Mijas (Malaga)

Available from: The IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural
C/ Marie Curie 22 y Marino
29590 Campanillas, Malaga, Spain Secretaría General del Mar
Tel: +34 952 028430 - Fax: +34 952 028145 C/ Velázquez, 144
http://www.iucn.org/mediterranean 28006 Madrid, Spain
Tel: +34 913 476010 - Fax: +34 913 476012

A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available at: http://iucn.org/publications

The text of this book is printed on recycled chlorine free Cyclusprint 150 gsm

II
Table of Contents
Foreword v

Executive Summary 1

Introduction to the Guides 10

Guide A: Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices 13

Guide B: Bases for certification schemes 19

Guide C: Types of certification schemes 29

Guide D: Certifying sustainability 43

Annexes

Glossary 56

References 59

List of Participants 62

List of Acronyms 68

III
IV
Foreword
A quaculture currently faces a significant worldwide challenge to meet
the increasing demand for high-quality sea products in local and
international markets while trying to avoid environmental problems. In
particular, aquaculture is expected to develop widely in the near future in
the European, North African and Middle Eastern countries bordering the
Mediterranean. In order to avoid any potential environmental disruption and
to respond to worldwide competition, it is important for the Mediterranean
aquaculture sector to develop in a sustainable manner.

The Marine Programme of the International Union for Conservation of

Nature (IUCN) promotes best practice in the aquaculture sector. In 2005
IUCN and the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP)
signed an agreement to cooperate in the development of sustainable
aquaculture. Within this framework, IUCN and the General Secretariat
for Fisheries of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
(MAPA)1 signed an agreement to cooperate and develop Guides for the
Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture.

The objective of these Guides is to make recommendations for responsible

and sustainable aquaculture of all kinds, as an aid to decision makers,
aquaculture producers and other stakeholders in the Mediterranean region.

This book belongs to this collection of Guides for the Sustainable

Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture. The first volume in the series
dealt with “Interactions between Aquaculture and the Environment” and the
second with “Aquaculture Site Selection and Site Management”. This third
volume is devoted to “Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification”
with a view to sustainability within the Mediterranean region.

1
Actually, Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (MARM)

V
This book is the result of a two-day workshop held in Hammamet, Tunisia
(16–17 June 2008), organized by IUCN. This workshop gathered 30
participants from most Mediterranean countries, including scientists and
aquaculture producers as well as representatives of government agencies
and non-governmental organizations (a list of participants can be found in
the Annex section). A second workshop was held in Rome (1–3 September
2008) to consolidate the debate and discussions.

Data were compiled and this document was drafted by Stamatis Sivitos,
Konstantinos Kalamantis and Nathalie Gamain (EBCD, European Bureau
for Conservation and Development), with the participation of all workshop
participants, under the coordination of Javier Ojeda González-Posada
(APROMAR/FEAP) and François Simard (IUCN). The English version has
been edited by Christopher Tribe.

VI
Executive Summary
A quaculture is the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, molluscs,
crustaceans and aquatic plants, and embraces all kinds of aquaculture
(inland and marine, and capture based or not). Farming implies some sort of
intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular
stocking, feeding and protection from predators. Farming also implies
individual or corporate ownership of the stock being cultivated.

Over the past decade, there has been growing concern among international
stakeholders, particularly in Mediterranean countries, about aquaculture
product quality, knowledge management, interaction with the environment,
technology and systems, fish health and welfare, management of biological
lifecycles and sustainable feed production within the aquaculture sector. This
has driven a constructive debate among stakeholders, resulting in the drafting
of this Guide “Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification”. This
volume includes:

Guide A: Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices

Guide B: Bases for certification schemes

Guide C: Types of certification schemes

Guide D: Certifying sustainability

1
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

Guide A Codes of conduct and better aquaculture

practices

Principle
Appropriate codes of conduct and better aquaculture
practices should be developed and implemented by
aquaculture producers with a view to sustainability.

Guidelines
• Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices
should address the environmental, social and
economic pillars of sustainability. This broad
approach will enhance fully responsible aquaculture
management practices.
• Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices
should be based on the best available scientific
knowledge. This solid foundation is essential to
make them credible, robust and up-to-date guides to
responsible aquaculture practice.
• Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices
should be built on consensus among aquaculture
producers and other stakeholders. A participatory
approach, including consultation with producers
at all levels (from large companies to small-scale
producers) and a wide range of other stakeholder
© Pablo Sánchez

2
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

representatives from government, private and

Guide A non-governmental organizations, universities and
research centres, will result in more comprehensive
content that will be more easily understood and
more broadly acceptable.
• Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices
should be reviewed and adjusted on a regular basis.
Within fast-evolving activities such as aquaculture, the
content of these documents needs to be periodically
adapted to reflect the latest developments, new
scientific research, new and traditional knowledge,
and current issues faced by the sector.
• Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices
should be adapted to local conditions in order to
make them applicable in different social, economic
and environmental contexts. Codes of conduct
are more theoretical and are therefore more easily
adopted anywhere, but special care should be
taken to adapt better aquaculture practices to local
conditions.

3
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

Guide B Bases for certification schemes

Principle
The development and implementation of certification
schemes should promote consumer confidence in the
products and lead to improved production practices.

Guidelines
On the structure of certification schemes
• Certification schemes should be consistent with
relevant international rules, agreements and codes
of practice. The creation of a certification scheme
should rely on the main existing international
conventions in order to be credible.
• The principles and standards in certification schemes
should be based on the best scientific evidence
available. The development of these schemes should
be based on science and on the use of methods widely
accepted by scientific and technical communities.
Nevertheless, traditional knowledge should also
be taken into account as long as its validity can be
objectively verified.
• Certification schemes should not create obstacles to
trade. For the market economy to operate properly,
schemes should avoid creating artificial barriers to
trade and misleading consumers.
• Certification schemes should be cost efficient. There
is a requirement of cost effectiveness for schemes to
be practicable and open to all.
• Certification schemes should be fit for purpose.
Schemes should be fully effective in achieving
their designated objectives, having regard to the
determination of the acceptable level at which the
© Sandra Simoes

issues should be addressed.

• Conflicts of interest should be avoided. There should
not be any conflict of interest among the entities

4
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

involved in the certification process. This means

Guide B that the entities responsible for standard setting,
accreditation and certification must be independent
of each other to make the scheme fully credible.
• Certification schemes should be periodically
revised. The principles and standards behind the
schemes should be reviewed at regular intervals in
consultation with stakeholders and, if appropriate,
revised following such reviews.

On the objectives of certification schemes

• The whole process of certification should be
transparent. Transparency should apply to all aspects
of developing and implementing a certification
scheme, such as its organizational structure, access
to information and participation of all interested
parties.
• Certification schemes should involve a multi-
stakeholder process. Certification schemes should
implement a multi-participatory approach embracing
social, economic and environmental acceptance.
A special effort should be made to ensure there
is adequate and fair participation by relevant
stakeholders in the standard-setting process.
• Certification schemes should benefit producers. The
implementation of a certification scheme should
provide some sort of economic benefit to producers
as a reward for their efforts.
• Certification should be voluntary and open to
all producers. Certification schemes should not
discriminate against any group of producers, for
example on grounds of scale, production density or
technology.
• Certification should encourage better practices
across the entire industry.
© François Simard

5
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

Guide C Types of certification schemes

Principle
Existing categories and types of certification schemes
should be examined in order to address some aspects of
the sustainable development of aquaculture.

Guidelines
• Certification schemes should be accessible to
participants, by being affordable, applicable and
comprehensible.
• Existing types of certification should contribute to
the sustainable development of aquaculture. Their
limitations may lead to the creation of a new type
of certification in the future to better embrace
sustainability.
• Certification should allow and encourage fair trade,
avoid creating unnecessary obstacles to trade and not
be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil the
legitimate objective of the standards. They should
provide an opportunity to penetrate domestic and
international markets.
© Carmela Gil Vázquez, ESACUA

6
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

Guide D Certifying sustainability

Principle
Certification of sustainability, covering its three pillars
(environmental, social, and economic), should be developed
in order to support the sustainable development of the
aquaculture industry.

Guidelines
• Certification methods and processes should be
developed for each of the pillars of sustainable
development separately and for all three together.
The three elements of sustainable development
(environmental, social, and economic) are equally
important.
• The sustainability of aquaculture should be certified
at appropriate scales. Different criteria should be
used for the various scales: at site level, company
level and regional or national level. Not all criteria
can be used at all scales.
• Standards for sustainability certification schemes
should be developed, taking regional and cultural
particularities into account. Mediterranean

© Olivier Barbaroux, Ifremer

7
Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

aquaculture has local features and traditions that

Guide D require the development of specific standards.
• Social acceptability should be covered by sustainability
certification. Appropriate site selection should be a
key criterion aimed at safeguarding employment
and minimizing conflicts. Environmental impact
assessments, proper monitoring of the environment
and continuous dialogue on all these issues are
needed, as well as a risk assessment of the activity.
Social acceptability will be successful only by relying
on effective communication among stakeholders.
• Sustainability certification schemes should be
periodically revised. Because sustainability is a
dynamic state that changes over time, sustainability
certification schemes need to be frequently
updated.
• Certifying sustainability should be positive for
producers. The certification process should benefit
producers at various levels. Their marketing,
communications, internal management and
procedures should improve, and they may also
receive government incentives, since sustainable
development is a commitment made by states.

8
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

Guide D With respect to economic sustainability

• The economic aspect of sustainability certification
should be developed at the sector level. Indicators
and standards for the sector (relating to economic
structures, markets and diversification) should be
developed at Mediterranean and national levels.
• The assessment of the economic sustainability
status of a fish farm should address the company’s
attitude and commitment towards sustainability. As
it is recognised that economically certifying a fish
farm at the financial level is not possible, some other
economic criteria (such as the annual balance sheet)
should be defined, while taking into consideration
the farm’s commitment to sustainable development
and responsible management practices.
• Producers should be given financial and other
incentives to improve their standards and to put in
place sustainability certification procedures. Special
care should be taken to avoid giving financial incentives
that may increase pressure on the ecosystem. On the
contrary, incentives should be developed to support
the certification of sustainability.

© BIOGES

9
Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

Introduction to the Guides

T he aquaculture industry is rapidly growing in importance as a result
of falling catches of wild fish and increasing global demands for
seafood. Most of the future demand for seafood can only be met through
aquaculture. The Mediterranean countries have a strong market for seafood,
a long tradition of freshwater and marine fish and shellfish cultivation
and husbandry, dynamic research, use of technology, qualified and trained
entrepreneurs and fish farmers, suitable climatic conditions and appropriate
sites for the species currently farmed.

The aquaculture sector also faces a number of challenges, which have an

impact on its sustainability. These include constraints of space and good-
quality water, and measures to protect public health and the environment.
Moreover, society and policy makers are more demanding with aquaculture
activities than with fisheries and agriculture. Mediterranean aquaculture must
also compete with imports from Asia and South America, where aquaculture
production growth is the highest in the world. It is therefore important to
improve aquaculture management practice in the Mediterranean area and to
certify it for consumers.

In response to the worldwide growth of best practices and certification schemes

in the aquaculture sector, the Mediterranean countries realized that consensus
was needed on how best to organize the sector. The IUCN/FEAP working
group on aquaculture brought together representatives of the Mediterranean
industry, conservation organizations and scientists to develop a common vision
for the industry in the Mediterranean region by analysing the economic, social
and environmental aspects of aquaculture practice and certification. This multi-
stakeholder participatory approach was designed to ensure that consensus could
be reached within the sector throughout the Mediterranean region, so as to
enhance its ability to compete in a global industry. This transparent process also
aimed at reinforcing consumers’ confidence in the aquaculture industry.

10
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

This Guide to sustainable development in Mediterranean aquaculture presents

the results of this innovative multi-stakeholder approach to responsible
aquaculture practice and certification, and should become a discussion paper
for the industry. It provides insights and arguments about how sustainability
can be covered by a certification scheme, which will involve measurement
and indicators. Importantly, the Guide also examines what sustainability
stands for in environmental, social and economic terms.

Another facet of the Guide emphasises the role of certification in the

aquaculture industry. Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices are
the primary tools that Mediterranean aquaculture should use to distinguish
its production from that of other regions of the world. With a view to
achieving the best possible performance, the Mediterranean aquaculture
sector is examining the bases for certification, together with the types of
schemes available. Certification schemes could become great incentives for
the sector to reach out to the end consumer. In fact, the principles behind
certification should allow the Mediterranean aquaculture industry to study
the alternatives for rewarding responsible practice, as well as examine the
existing types of certification. This analytical process should encourage the
sector to reinforce responsible practices and try to achieve sustainability in
social, environmental and social terms.

This Guide also brings into focus several interesting issues for discussion,
such as marketing or management support for certification, and the voluntary
versus mandatory approach to sustainability certification.

11
Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

12
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

Codes of conduct and better

aquaculture practices

This guide shows how codes of conduct and better aquaculture

practices can support the sustainable development of aquaculture by
defining responsible attitudes, guiding principles and suitable practices
in aquaculture.

Current situation
Codes of conduct
and better aquaculture
practices can address
a variety of issues
or concerns, but in
general they tend to
focus on environmental
impact reduction and
improvement of farm
productivity, product
quality, animal health,
animal welfare, food
safety and socio- © Pablo Sánchez

economic aspects. More

recent ones adopt positions on sustainability in the general sense.

Both types of document aim at enhancing the industry and improving

its performance, although each at a different level. Codes of conduct
are more theoretical, while better aquaculture practices are more
practical.

Codes of conduct are sets of written principles and expectations that,

Guide A

although based on voluntary compliance, are considered binding on

anyone belonging to a particular group that adopts the code. Two
important codes of conduct may be presented as examples. The FAO
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995) sets out ‘principles
and international standards of behaviour for responsible practices

13
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

with a view to ensuring the effective conservation, management and

Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices

development of living aquatic resources, with due respect for the

ecosystem and biodiversity’. Its Article 9 deals with aquaculture. Secondly,
the FEAP Code of Conduct for European Aquaculture (FEAP, 2006) has as
its primary goal ‘the responsible development and management of a
viable and sustainable European aquaculture sector to assure the highest
standard of quality food production while respecting environmental
considerations and consumers’ demands’.

On the other hand, better aquaculture practices, also known as codes of

practice or best aquaculture practices, are practical and detailed written
guidelines to help producers comply with appropriate management
practices. Better aquaculture practices are sometimes developed in the
context of a certain code of conduct, but not always. A professional
association normally issues them for its members. The term ‘better’
is preferred to ‘best’ because aquaculture practices are continuously
improving and today’s ‘best’ can become tomorrow’s norm. As an
example, the Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture prepared
by the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation has been a collaborative
process involving industry, regulators, government and other stakeholders.
The Best Aquaculture Practices of the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA, 2009)
promotes responsible practice across the aquaculture industry through
certification standards for the evaluation of management practices from
production to processing.

Due to the growing importance of shrimp production, the FAO Network

of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA), the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Bank Group (WB) and
the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have published International Principles for
Responsible Shrimp Farming (FAO et al., 2006). This document’s purpose
is to lay down principles for the management of shrimp farming and
provide guidance for the implementation of the FAO Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries in the shrimp aquaculture sector; consequently it is
Guide A

a form of better aquaculture practice. These International Principles

address technical, environmental, social and economic issues associated
with shrimp farming and provide a basis for industry and government
management to improve the overall sustainability of shrimp farming at
national, regional and global levels.

14
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

Although the implementation of codes of conduct and better aquaculture

practices is voluntary, after a period of time some of them have been used as
a source of basic guidance for government policy, administration and legal
frameworks, and so have evolved into binding regulations.

Professional associations most often develop codes of conduct and better

aquaculture practices, but environmental non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) or bodies such as FAO, UNEP or NACA are sometimes involved.

Because codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices clearly define the
basic principles and standards for aquaculture, they have sometimes been
taken as baselines for the development of certification schemes.

Justification
The creation and implementation of codes of conduct and better
aquaculture practices is a first step towards responsible management. When
the principles and standards included in them embrace environmental, social
and economic aspects, their acceptance and application form a good basis
for sustainability.

Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices are efficient educational

and training tools. Aquaculture farmers should from the outset of their work
have a clear idea of what responsible management entails. Besides, these
documents provide easy guidance that is not imposed by any government
but offered by peers.

At the same time, codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices make it
easier to communicate about aquaculture principles with anyone concerned
or interested in the activity.

Principle
Appropriate codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices should
be developed and implemented by aquaculture producers with a view to
sustainability.

15
 Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

Guidelines
Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices should
address the environmental, social and economic pillars of
sustainability. This broad approach will enhance fully responsible
aquaculture management practices.

Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices should

be based on the best available scientific knowledge. This
solid foundation is essential to make them credible, robust and
up-to-date guidelines to responsible aquaculture practice.

Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices should

be built on consensus among aquaculture producers and
other stakeholders. A participatory approach, including
consultation with producers at all levels (from large companies
to small-scale producers) and a wide range of other stakeholder
representatives from government, private and non-governmental
organizations, universities and research centres, will result in more
comprehensive content that will be more easily understood and
more broadly acceptable.

Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices should

be reviewed and adjusted on a regular basis. Within fast-
evolving activities such as aquaculture, the content of these
documents needs to be periodically adapted to reflect the latest
developments, new scientific research, new and traditional
knowledge, and current issues faced by the sector.

Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices should be

adapted to local conditions in order to make them applicable
Guide A

in different social, economic and environmental contexts.

Codes of conduct are more theoretical and are therefore more
easily adopted anywhere, but special care should be taken to adapt
better aquaculture practices to local conditions.

16
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

Examples of codes of conduct

Code of Conduct for European Aquaculture,

2006; FEAP:
http://www.feap.info/
FileLibrary%5C6%5CFEAP%20
Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf

Within the European aquaculture sector,

FEAP developed a code of conduct in
2000 to promote best practice among © Pablo Sánchez
its producer members, as described
above. It establishes and recommends guiding principles for those in
Europe who are producing live species through aquaculture. The code
does not seek to distinguish between species or the types or scales of
farms found within the European aquaculture sector. Its purpose is to
establish common ground, through effective self-regulation, for sectoral
responsibility within society and to demonstrate the consideration to
be shown by the production sector towards the species it rears, the
environment and the consumer.

It is assumed that European and national legislation will provide

minimum standards for aquaculture. The code then serves as the basis
for the development of individual national codes of practice in order to
interpret and apply existing standards and to develop, refine or improve
them, as required. The FEAP Code of Conduct focuses on production
process quality rather than food safety, labelling or traceability issues.
No mandatory independent third-party verification, certification or
surveillance are included.

Other examples of codes of conduct are:

• Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, 1995; FAO:
http://www.fao.org/fishery/ccrf/en

17
 Codes of conduct and better aquaculture practices Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

• Australian Aquaculture Code of Conduct, 1999; Australian

Aquaculture Forum:
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/
0007/42955/code_of_conduct.pdf

• Code of Conduct for Shrimp Farming; Department of Fisheries,

Thailand:
http://www.thaiqualityshrimp.com/coc/home.asp [in Thai]

• Code of Conduct: Saltwater Salmon Net-Pen Operations, 2002;

Washington Fish Growers Association:
http://www.wfga.net/conduct.php

• Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture, 2006; Scottish

Salmon Producers’ Organisation (SSPO):
http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/aboutus/codes.asp

• Best Aquaculture Practices; Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA):

http://www.gaalliance.org/bap.html

• International Principles for Responsible Shrimp Farming, 2006; FAO,

NACA, UNEP, WB and WWF:
http://www.enaca.org/modules/shrimp/
index.php?content_id=1
Guide A

18
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

Bases for certification schemes

This guide analyses the basic structure and contents on which a
credible certification scheme should be based, including institutional
and organizational arrangements.

Current situation
Consumers are increasingly concerned about how food is produced
and about its intrinsic qualities. The main issues of concern are
food quality, food safety,
environmental impact,
social responsibility and
animal welfare, amongst
others.

In former times, when

produce was sold locally,
consumers could easily
obtain information directly
from the farmer, including
details about how the food
had been produced and
its characteristics. Today, © Sandra Simoes

however, food is often

produced far from its consumers, who require some sort of proof that
the product they have bought has been produced in a certain way or
has certain expected qualities.

In this context, certification means demonstrating that a product,

or process, meets certain clear, commonly understood and accepted
standards or characteristics. This confirmation is in addition to the general
information supplied by the producer on product labels and is usually,
Guide B

although not always, provided by means of an external assessment. A

certification scheme is a collection of processes, procedures and activities
leading to certification. A credible certification scheme is built on three
steps: standard setting, accreditation and certification. The standard setting

19
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

process develops and reviews the certification standards; the accreditation

Bases for certification schemes

process grants formal recognition to certification bodies; and, finally, the

certification process verifies compliance with the certification standards.
The certification scheme usually ends with the physical marking of the
product with a certification mark or seal. More details are provided at the
end of this chapter.

Certification schemes are often designed as marketing tools, to

differentiate certain products in the marketplace from the rest and to
convince consumers that they will meet their expectations. At the same
time, certification schemes can encourage better management practices
on the producer’s side by providing an economic advantage based on
feedback from the consumers’ choice of products.

Certification schemes are usually established by private-sector businesses,

industry associations, NGOs or public bodies, or through agreements
reached between them.

There are several ways in which certification schemes are developed and
applied:

• First-party certification schemes are those in which an individual

company sets its own standards, analyses its own performance and
reports on its own compliance in the form of a self-declaration.
This type of claim is generally of limited value as most consumers
do not trust self-declaration.

• Second-party certification schemes are those in which industry

associations or NGOs set the standards and also conduct the
certification process on individual companies that wish to be
certified.

• Third-party certification schemes are those in which the standard-

Guide B

setting organization is different from and independent of the

certification body that conducts the certification process, and
both are different from and independent of the companies to
be certified. This type of scheme provides the highest order of
proof of compliance.

20
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

The geographical scope of certification schemes may be regional, national

or international. Because certification schemes are often used as marketing
tools aimed at consumers, their design and application are determined by
the requirements and conditions applicable in the country of residence of
the consumers, and not of the producers. In the case of Mediterranean
aquaculture, however, production and market may be located in the
same country, creating a single basis for a certification scheme. The same
consideration applies to laws and regulations: compliance is required with the
local laws that govern the production process, with international regulations
on trade, and with the national laws in the country where the product is to
be sold.

The standards to be met by certified products must not be lower than the
established legal obligations, especially on food safety issues. Therefore
certification requirements are generally more stringent than legal obligations
in all respects.

Certification schemes have been accused of causing disruption to free trade;

as a result, international organizations such as the World Trade Organization
(WTO) have worked to create rules to ensure fair practice in international
trade and to facilitate market access. In particular, WTO has promoted
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures to prevent the deliberate
creation of trade barriers.

Because of the increasing movement of products around the world and

the need for certification schemes to be internationally accepted, a certain
degree of standardization has been developed in the design and structure
of schemes. The main organizations involved in setting common standards
for certification are the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO, 2009) and the International Social and Environmental Accreditation
and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL). ISO has several documents in this field:
ISO/IEC Guide 59 (Code of good practice for standardization), ISO Guide 62
(General requirements for bodies operating assessment and certification/registration of
quality systems) and ISO/IEC Guide 65 (General requirements for bodies operating
product certification systems). ISEAL offers a Code of good practice for setting social
and environmental standards (ISEAL, 2006). Additional information on both
organizations is provided in Guide C.

21
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

One of the basic structural elements of any certification scheme is

Bases for certification schemes

traceability, often regarded as the backbone of the certification system.

Traceability is the ability to track a product through all stages of
production, processing and distribution. It is based on appropriate data
collection. Traceability makes it possible to target market withdrawals,
by enabling authorities to trace a food-related risk back to the source
of the problem, isolate it and prevent it from reaching consumers. It
minimizes trade disruptions to a whole family of food products in the
event of safety problems with just a single product. Traceability does
not by itself make food safe, but is rather a risk management tool.

Traceability of food products is compulsory in many countries around

the world. In the European Union, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of
the European Parliament and of the Council (EU, 2002) lays down the
general principles and requirements of food law in the European Union.
Its Article 18 is dedicated to traceability.

Certification schemes assure the traceability of their products and

processes. This traceability favours continuous and measurable
improvements in the performance of the system, and establishes clear
accountability for all the parties involved, including the owners of the
certification schemes, the auditors and the certification bodies. Modern
information technologies allow for the collection and analysis of huge
quantities of data.

The most recent food paradigm is often described as ‘from farm to

plate’. This means that the certification of aquaculture products does
not end with the conformity assessment of the products themselves,
but includes measures to track the certified products through the stages
of processing, distribution and marketing. This second step is known
as chain of custody. Not all certification schemes include the chain of
custody because of the added complexity, but for full traceability some
control over it is required.
Guide B

Justification
In order for certification schemes to be effective, they must provide
credible information on product characteristics and quality, enjoy
widespread acceptance and ensure traceability. One barrier to this

22
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

objective is that certification schemes are often seen as mere marketing

tools, and this has led to a proliferation of them. Although the abundance
of certification schemes is positive because it provides consumers with
more information, on the other hand it is confusing to consumers and
producers, not only because of their overwhelming profusion, but also
because of the use of misleading names and the lack of clear boundaries
between them. Some certification schemes even offer no special added
value to products. This confusing situation demands that additional
efforts be made to harmonize equivalent certification schemes.

In short, the implementation of certification schemes should provide

added value for food producers, but many of them find it is now evolving
into an obligation that offers them little direct benefit in return.

Principle
The development and implementation of certification schemes should
promote consumer confidence in the products and lead to improved
production practices.

Guidelines
On the structure of certification schemes
Certification schemes should be consistent with relevant
international rules, agreements and codes of practice. The
creation of a certification scheme should rely on the main existing
international conventions in order to be credible.

The principles and standards in certification schemes should be

based on the best scientific evidence available. The development
of these schemes should be based on science and on the use of
methods widely accepted by scientific and technical communities.
Nevertheless, traditional knowledge should also be taken into account
as long as its validity can be objectively verified.

23
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

Certification schemes should not create obstacles to trade.

Bases for certification schemes

For the market economy to operate properly, schemes should avoid

creating artificial barriers to trade and misleading consumers.

Certification schemes should be cost efficient. There is a

requirement of cost effectiveness for schemes to be practicable
and open to all.

Certification schemes should be fit for purpose. Schemes

should be fully effective in achieving their designated objectives,
having regard to the determination of the acceptable level at
which the issues should be addressed.

Conflicts of interest should be avoided. There should not

be any conflict of interest among the entities involved in the
certification process. This means that the entities responsible
for standard setting, accreditation and certification must be
independent of each other to make the scheme fully credible.

Certification schemes should be periodically revised. The

principles and standards behind the schemes should be reviewed
at regular intervals in consultation with stakeholders and, if
appropriate, revised following such reviews.

On the objectives of certification schemes

The whole process of certification should be transparent.
Transparency should apply to all aspects of developing and
implementing a certification scheme, such as its organizational
structure, access to information and participation of all interested
parties.

Certification schemes should involve a multi-stakeholder

Guide B

process. Certification schemes should implement a multi-

participatory approach embracing social, economic and
environmental acceptance. A special effort should be made
to ensure there is adequate and fair participation by relevant
stakeholders in the standard-setting process.

24
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

Certification schemes should benefit producers. The

implementation of a certification scheme should provide some sort
of economic benefit to producers as a reward for their efforts.

Certification should be voluntary and open to all producers.

Certification schemes should not discriminate against any group of
producers, for example on grounds of scale, production density or
technology.

Certification should encourage better practices across the entire

industry.

Proof of certification: labels and marks

A label is a piece of paper or other

material which provides consumers with
information about the object to which it is
fixed. In the case of food products, a label
is usually attached to them or displayed
nearby, in order to promote sales and also
to comply with legal obligations, such
as giving the producer’s name, address
and food-safety approval details. Where © APROMAR
products have gone through a voluntary
certification process, and especially where they are being marketed to the
final consumer, producers also want their customers to easily recognise
such compliance. A special logo or symbol is therefore designed,
registered and attached to the certified product as direct, recognisable
proof of compliance.

In English, the word ‘label’ is commonly used for both purposes (to give
information from the producer and to show proof of certification).
This creates confusion between the two types and about what is meant
in each case. The situation is different in other languages such as Spanish

25
 Bases for certification schemes Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

or French, where the producer’s information is given on an etiqueta

(Spanish) or étiquette (French), and the proof of certification is a
marchamo (Spanish) or label (French). Complications arise when,
for example, a French certification scheme such as Label Rouge is
translated into English. Furthermore, the frequently used term ‘eco-
label’ is especially confusing because, although it is a catchy term, it
neither means ‘eco’ in the sense of ‘organic’ (as organic products are
described in many European countries), nor is it an ordinary ‘label’
since it refers to a certification mark.

For that reason, in English the term ‘certification mark’ or ‘certification

seal’ perhaps should be preferred to ‘certification label’.

Traceability and labelling

Traceability and labelling are issues associated with certification that
are considered by the industry to ensure responsible practices.

Some suggested guidelines are as follows:

• Both issues should be integrated with certification to

promote the production and consumption of responsibly
produced aquaculture products. The Traceability,
Certification, Labelling (TCL) principle should include the
following objectives:

Correct identification of aquaculture products.

Enhanced communication: a strategy to improve

communication regarding producers’ activities, product
origins, and production methods should be implemented
Guide B

to inform consumers of the benefits of aquaculture.

Consumers should realize that aquaculture can contribute
to the conservation of resources and, in turn, sustainability.
Factors such as geographical location (distance from the sea)

26
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

and social status, which influence consumers’ perceptions, have

to be taken into account when designing these strategies.

Competition/harmonization of legislation: an operational

level of harmonization should be established to allow for
fairer competition. Developing countries should not be
excluded. Similar standards should apply to all stakeholders.
Legislation on TCL and related schemes currently vary from
one region to another. This leads companies (especially from
developing countries) to select different schemes and target
different regions.

• Standards and definitions for TCL should be harmonized.

This will enable companies to target larger markets. How can
harmonization and integration of TCL be achieved? There is
confusion regarding the various terms used, but the existing
definitions given by bodies at global and EU level (FAO/WHO
Codex Alimentarius, OECD, EU regulations, etc.) should not
be questioned but used as a basis. The link between traceability,
labelling and certification should be identified. Furthermore,
harmonization of these definitions might be useful.

• Awareness should be raised of the value of TCL for

local producers, especially small-scale producers. TCL is
advantageous not only for export producers but also for local
producers and consumers.

• Producers, processors, retailers and, in general, all

stakeholders associated with the aquaculture product food
chain should collaborate in order to further develop the
basic standards for TCL.

• TCL should be guaranteed by public/governmental bodies,

since in principle the consumer has more faith in these official

27
 Bases for certification schemes Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

structures. It should not be imposed by specific interest groups

(such as marketing, environmental or animal welfare groups)
but should come from society and consumers as a whole.
In recent years environmental NGOs have put pressure on
retailers to certify products that do not harm the environment.
This might sometimes mislead consumers and influence their
choices.

• Control and enforcement of TCL practices is essential, in

particular for traceability. This safeguards public health.

• Capacity building in developing countries is needed to

improve the TCL model and make it operational.

• Transparency and independence should be assured in

order to avoid dubious examples. Rating agencies need a
mechanism that will involve the state, since they are not as
strong in the Mediterranean region as they are in other countries,
such as the USA, where they have huge powers to influence
the market. Rating agencies could be used to complement
certification bodies, which are in principle public.
Guide B

28
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

Types of certification schemes

Current situation
The main trends in aquaculture certification are that there are increasing
numbers of schemes, increasing numbers of commodities covered by
schemes and an increasing scope of standards (covering social factors,
environment, food
safety, animal health
and welfare, and trade).
All these are driven by
a standing demand for
certified products.

As mentioned above
in Guide B, most types
of certification try to
comply with standardized © GRUPO TRES MARES S.A.

schemes made available

by bodies such as ISO and the ISEAL Alliance:

• ISO (International Organization for Standardization) is the world’s

largest developer and publisher of international standards. Through
its network of national standards institutes (in 157 countries), ISO
is a non-governmental organization linking the public and private
sectors. Consensus can thus be reached on solutions meeting both
the requirements of business and the broader needs of society.
Good examples are ISO/IEC Guide 65 on general requirements
for bodies operating product certification systems, and ISO Guide
62 providing general requirements for bodies operating assessment
and certification/registration of quality systems.

• The ISEAL Alliance defines and codifies best practice at the

Guide C

international level for the design and implementation of social

and environmental standards. It has launched its Code of Good
Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards, which enables
certification schemes to gain credibility and recognition.

29
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

Certain types of certification created by NGOs and civil society tend

Types of certification schemes

to focus on environmental and social issues to a greater extent than the

types of scheme created by industry, which usually address issues such
as food safety and quality, demonstrating compliance by the industry
and market partners.

Most certification work within the aquaculture sector so far has involved
salmon and shrimp farming, though the increasing importance and
volume of aquaculture production has led to a growing interest in
applying these types of certification to a wider range of aquaculture
commodities. The proliferation of different types of certification
worldwide, however, which often leads to duplication, has resulted in a
considerable risk of confusion among consumers, producers and other
stakeholders. As described below, confusion already exists over eco-
certification and organic certification, for instance, as consumers tend to
confuse these certification types and the objectives behind them, often
because the terminology itself is unclear.

The type of certification depends on the approach used. The quality,

business-to-business, environmental, social and consumer approaches
are described below, although some of them may be applicable to more
than one type.

The quality approach

Products can gain a distinct advantage by being certified under a quality-
based type of certification scheme. One of the best known and most
widely recognised and accepted is the French Label Rouge (‘Red Label’)
(Ministère de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture et de la pêche, 2007). This is
a quality type of certification scheme (redefined in France’s Agricultural
Framework Act of 5 January 2006) certifying that a product possesses a
set of specific characteristics that result in a level of quality superior to that
of similar products. It was developed in the 1960s to promote production
methods respectful of animal welfare and the environment. The first
product covered by this scheme was poultry raised by traditional, free-
Guide C

range production methods, based on an official Label Rouge specification

approved by the French authorities. Today this quality certification
scheme covers both food (including seafood) and non-food products and
unprocessed farm products such as flowers.

30
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

Only a ‘quality group’ (QG), comprising all the partners with a stake in the
product (hatcheries, producers, feed manufacturers, etc.), is authorized to
apply for the Label Rouge. To obtain this certification, the QG must set out
specifications precisely defining the characteristics of the product, stating how
it has been produced and the type of inspection methods it has undergone.
Organoleptic tests must necessarily be performed to demonstrate the gustatory
quality of the product for which certification is sought.

The information provided on the Label Rouge is regulated. For each Label
Rouge product, the certification mark must state the characteristics certified.
The certification mark also carries an individual identification number, which
is the key used for tracing the product’s history from its origins to the point
of sale. Inspections address production methods and end products. In France,
quality certification of this type covers about 500 products, representing
production worth €1.4 billion.

The business-to-business approach

Certain products and practices are also certified under the business-
to-business (B2B) approach. This term is commonly used to describe
commercial transactions between businesses, like that between a producer
and a wholesaler or a wholesaler and a retailer, in other words where both
the buyer and the seller are business entities.

GLOBALGAP (formerly known as EUREP-GAP) has taken this approach.

Established by the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP),
GLOBALGAP is a B2B system set up by worldwide leading food retailers.
They have developed a mechanism for setting production standards for
commodities entering the retail trade. This initiative is a reaction to consumers’
growing concerns regarding product safety, environmental issues and
labour standards and the need to harmonize previous, often very different
standards. This is a particularly important type of certification as even if
legal rules are fulfilled by a product it will not enter the retail trade unless the
producer company adheres to this system and meets the retailers’ standards.
The programme focuses on production process quality, labelling, traceability
and food safety. Third party verification by an accredited certification body
is required.

Apart from the guides developed by ISO covering the aquaculture sector
(see Guide B above), ISO has adopted a B2B approach with its two

31
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

standards tackling quality management (ISO 9000) and environmental

Types of certification schemes

issues (ISO 14000). Both standards exist to help organizations to

prove to their customers that they minimize the environmental effects
of their operations (adverse changes to air, water or soil) and comply
with applicable laws and regulations. An international specification
for environmental management systems (EMS) also exists within ISO
14000, which specifies requirements for establishing an environmental
policy, determining the environmental aspects and impacts of the
products, activities and services, planning environmental objectives and
measurable targets, implementing and operating programmes to meet
these objectives and targets, running checks and adopting corrective
action, and managing reviews.

ISO 14000 is similar to ISO 9000 on quality management in that both

pertain to the process (evaluating the comprehensive outcome of how
a product is produced) rather than to the product itself. The overall
aim is to establish an organized approach to systematically reducing
those environmental impacts that an organization can control. Effective
tools for analysis of an organization’s environmental aspects and for
generation of improvement options are provided by the concept of
‘cleaner production’.

This type of certification is still voluntary and thus its level of

implementation still poses a number of problems. That is why some
countries have developed economic incentives to encourage the industry
to adhere to it. Spain, for example, encourages aquaculture farms to
adopt better environmental practices by significantly reducing the charge
for concessions in public domain waters for aquaculture companies that
implement officially recognised environmental management certification
schemes, such as the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) or
ISO 14000. This law was passed in 2007 and provides discounts of up
to 40% on this expensive levy for aquaculture farms that improve their
environmental performance in this way.
Guide C

The environmental approach

Several types of certification based on an environmental approach
exist. Eco-certification (also called green marketing or green labelling;
European Commission, 2005) is a type of certification assuring
consumers that the product has been produced according to a given set

32
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

of environmental standards. These address issues such as the sustainability

of the resources used, the environmental impact of the production
method, or the recyclability of the product. The underlying idea is that if
consumers are properly informed, their choices could possibly stimulate
the production and consumption of environmentally friendly products.
Consumers could thus influence the behaviour of producers and policy
makers.

The industry’s growing interest has created momentum in the fisheries

sector with the development of private eco-labelling types of certification.
Some of these have found their place on the markets, such as dolphin-
safe labelling, the Marine Stewardship Council programme, the newly
launched initiative of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, and the Global
Aquaculture Alliance scheme. These also suggest that eco-certification
shows clear potential, but only if not used solely as a marketing tool.

• Dolphin-safe/dolphin-friendly certification developed out of both the

Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme
(AIDCP) and a programme promoted by the Earth Island Institute.
AIDCP certification provides for the voluntary use of a dolphin-safe
certificate 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 ‘dolphin-safe’ if it 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 weaken the US law in 1999 was challenged in court by the
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, which consider the AIDCP measures
not to be stringent enough. Although dolphin-safe/dolphin-friendly
certification started out as a technical regulation, it has changed the
market profoundly. Today there are several certification schemes of
this type covering tuna. This has important consequences for the
international tuna market, as tuna which is not marked ‘dolphin-
safe’ is no longer accepted in some countries and therefore has to
find other trade outlets.

33
 Types of certification schemes Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

• The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), jointly created in 1997 by

Unilever and WWF, has launched a large private eco-labelling
initiative assessing the environmental impact of fishing. The MSC
has established general principles and criteria which are used to assess
individual stocks eligible for certification. In future they could also
be extended to the aquaculture sector. The principles upon which
this certification is based are as follows (MSC Executive, 2002):

A fishery must be conducted in a manner preventing overfishing

or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those
populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted
in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.

Fishing operations should not damage the maintenance of

the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the
ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and
ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

The fishery is subject to an effective management system

complying with local, national and international laws and standards
and incorporating institutional and operational frameworks that
require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

MSC certification has been greeted with reservations by developing

countries, which fear that their products may be excluded from
developed countries’ markets if this type of certification becomes a
regulatory tool.

• The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) was announced in

2009 on the initiative of WWF, which also launched the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) and MSC. ASC will be responsible for
managing the global standards currently developed by the multi-
stakeholder, transparent, ISEAL associate member Aquaculture
Guide C

Dialogues (WWF, 2009), which are aimed at minimizing the key

environmental and social impacts associated with aquaculture.
ASC will be responsible for hiring independent, third-party
auditors to certify farms that are in compliance with the
standards. These standards should cover 12 aquaculture species

34
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

that have the greatest impact on the environment, highest market

value and/or heaviest trading in the global market. These species
are: salmon, shrimp, trout, tilapia, pangasius, abalone, mussels,
clams, oysters, scallops, cobia and seriola.

• The Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA), which is an international, non-

profit, industry association dedicated to advancing environmentally
responsible aquaculture, is looking to develop a set of standards
covering responsible aquaculture activities (GAA, 2009). This
certification type focuses mainly on the management of shrimp
farming and processing operations, through the Aquaculture
Certification Council (ACC), its verification body.

• A new initiative to promote sustainability within the canned tuna

industry will be unveiled in the near future. Susan Jackson, President
of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), has been
discussing plans for a global partnership between canned tuna
suppliers, scientists and conservation organizations such as WWF.
The goal of the project is to have tuna fisheries become capable of
being certified in compliance with the FAO.

The growing importance of eco-certification is illustrated by the increasing

interest of European retail chains, which use this type of certification as a
marketing tool. These initiatives include:

• The Unilever Fish Sustainability Initiative (Unilever, n.d.) aimed to guide

consumers through the company’s internal selection of sources of
whitefish supply. Fisheries were classified from ‘sustainable’ to ‘not
sustainable’ according to five criteria based on the FAO Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries. Each criterion was rated on a green/orange/red
light system. This initiative was an initial step towards encouraging well-
managed fisheries to consider the endorsement and certification benefits
of MSC certification. It enabled consumers to make purchasing choices
according to the sustainability of the fish supply.

• The Carrefour Pêche Responsable (‘Responsible Fishing’) logo

provides a tool for customers at Carrefour’s hypermarkets in France
and Belgium to identify and purchase sustainably caught products.
It now covers frozen line-caught Icelandic cod fillets. Carrefour has

35
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

also shown interest in the Friend of the Sea certification mark

Types of certification schemes

through its Italian hypermarket chain. Friend of the Sea is part

of the Earth Island Project Network and is distinct from MSC in
covering both cultured and wild-caught fish and shellfish products.
Carrefour’s use of the Friend of the Sea logo in Italy is confined
to farmed seabass and seabream. Friend of the Sea certification
has also been adopted in Italy by the country’s largest retail chain,
Coop Italia. This chain is currently using it for several own-brand
canned seafood products, including anchovies, mackerel, salmon
and clams. This initiative shows Carrefour’s corporate strategy of
‘acting to respect the environment’ by tackling the issues of climate
change, biodiversity and natural resources, environmentally friendly
production and marketing, and fair and sustainable consumption.

In Europe, there exists an emerging debate around the EU ‘flower’ Eco-

label, which is a voluntary system for environmentally friendly products
in areas such as shoes, detergents, etc. The discussion is about whether
to extend the system to processed food, fisheries and more particularly
aquaculture products. Among the issues to be settled are the criteria
for awarding this eco-label to product groups, which could include
environmental factors such as their climate change impact, energy
and resource consumption and waste generation. Another issue being
discussed is the importance of integrating sustainable production criteria
within this eco-label scheme.

A different European approach is taken by the European Commission

(2005) in its Communication on Eco-Labelling Schemes for Fisheries Products.
After evaluating the current state of eco-labelling of fisheries products, the
Commission considers that eco-labelling stimulates consumer awareness
of the environmental dimension of fishing and thereby gives managers in
the sector the financial incentive to go beyond the requirements of existing
environmental rules. The European Community’s policy could lay down
minimum requirements for voluntary private and/or public eco-labelling,
and address the following issues: sustainable fisheries and an adequate level
Guide C

of protection of the ecosystem; a harmonized approach throughout the

Community; transparent and objective information for consumers; fair
competition; and ensuring that labelling schemes are not prohibitively
expensive for small and medium-sized enterprises or developing countries.
Additional criteria could also be studied, such as developing an eco-

36
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

labelling scheme offering real added environmental value, preventing confusion

with other food labels, and taking the entire life cycle of the product into
consideration.

Finally, some European regions have developed their own forms of

certification to identify and reward sustainable fisheries. This is the case of
the Nordic Council, which drew up an Arrangement for the Voluntary Certification
of Products of Sustainable Fishing in 2000. Based upon an assessment of
fisheries sustainability in the North-East Atlantic region, the criteria for this
environmental certification focus 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 within FAO.

FAO has indeed started to look at the benefits of certification and labelling
schemes as well. These schemes could be seen as a tool for securing sustainable
small fisheries (FAO, 2009), if measures are taken to identify socially and
ecologically sustainable fisheries. At the same time, FAO also highlights the
challenges to be overcome to achieve certification, aside from complying
with the standards; they include certification costs, organizing the fishery
to achieve market penetration and reach economies of scale, at the same
time as ensuring sustainable fishing practices. Finally, it seems that FAO is
studying ways to link and coordinate its initiatives more effectively, regarding
the guidelines for aquaculture and capture fisheries and the guidelines on
certification in aquaculture.

The social approach

Other types of certification take a social approach, such as fair trade or
ethical certification. This type of certification is designed for practices and/
or products that comply with the more social and economic (rather than
environmental) principles of fair and ethical trade. Fair trade, referring
to trading partnerships based on dialogue, transparency and respect, and
seeking greater equity in international trade, is also linked to environmental
aspects of resource management and some of the social issues associated
with environmental certification. By promoting sustainability and a market-
based approach to empowering developing-country producers, this type of
certification advocates the payment of a fair price. It focuses in particular on
exports from developing countries to developed countries, and so far covers
mainly agricultural products.

37
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

Fair trade’s strategic aim is to deliberately work with marginalized

Types of certification schemes

producers and workers in order to help them move from a position

of vulnerability to one of security and economic self-sufficiency. It
also aims at empowering them to become stakeholders in their own
organizations and actively play a wider role in the global arena to achieve
greater equity in international trade. Most fair trade import organizations
are certified by one or more national or international federations. These
federations coordinate, promote, and facilitate the work of fair trade
organizations, as in the case of Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International
(FLO) (2009). Created in 1997, it is now the largest and most widely
recognised association, with three producer networks and 20 national
labelling initiatives that promote and market the International Fairtrade
Certification Mark in their countries. It regularly inspects and certifies
producer organizations in more than 50 countries in Africa, Asia, and
Latin America. For a product to carry either the International Fairtrade
Certification Mark or the Fairtrade Certified Mark, it must come from
FLO-CERT inspected and certified producer organizations. The crops
must be grown and harvested in accordance with FLO standards. The
supply chain must also have been monitored by FLO-CERT, to ensure
the integrity of the products.

Fair trade certification guarantees not only fair prices, but also the
principles of ethical purchasing. These principles include adherence to
the International Labour Organisation (ILO) agreements and the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 2007, fair trade
certified sales amounted to approximately €2.3 billion worldwide, a 47%
year-on-year increase. While this represents a tiny fraction of world trade
in physical merchandise, fair trade products generally account for 1–20%
of all sales in their product categories in Europe and North America. In
June 2008, it was estimated that over 7.5 million disadvantaged producers
and their families were benefiting from fair trade funded infrastructure,
technical assistance and community development projects.

The consumer-oriented approach

Guide C

Another approach taken is certification oriented towards consumers, such

as organic certification and labels of origin.

Organic certification is a type of certification covering the activities

of producers of organic food and other products, food processing

38
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

enterprises, retailers and restaurants. Requirements vary from country to

country, and generally involve a set of production standards for growing,
storage, processing, packaging and shipping that include:

• avoidance of most synthetic chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides,

antibiotics, food additives, etc), genetically modified organisms,
irradiation, and the use of sewage sludge;

• use of farmland that has been free from chemicals for a number of
years (often three or more);

• detailed written record keeping of production and sales (audit trail);

• strict physical separation of organic products from non-certified

products;

• periodic on-site inspections.

In some countries this type of certification is overseen by the government,

and commercial use of the term ‘organic’ is legally restricted. Certified organic
producers are also subject to the same agricultural, food safety and other
government regulations that apply to non-certified producers.

Up to now organic aquaculture has been considered a niche market, because

of its philosophical approach. It could take off in the future due to the
increasing demand for farmed seafood. Organic aquaculture is not a panacea.
Through time, it has lost its very attractive principles and holistic approach. It
has become a marketing tool, as certification has started to replace consumer
education by promoting the added value of what stands behind the product:
locality, traditional production, low carbon footprint, animal welfare, fish
feed from sustainable fisheries, etc. For consumers, ‘certified organic’ is
seen as a product assurance, similar to ‘low fat’, ‘100% whole wheat’, or
‘no artificial preservatives’. This has also led to growing criticism towards
this type of certification even from the opponents of chemical-based and
factory-farming practices. They see it as a way to drive independent organic
producers out of business, and to undermine the quality of organic food.

In Europe most organic agriculture activities, including some fish production,

are certified under the umbrella of the International Federation of Organic

39
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). This organization includes more than

Types of certification schemes

750 member organizations in 108 countries, such as the Soil Association

in the UK, Bioland (Bioland, 2007) and Naturland in Germany, Bio
(FiBL, 2009) in Austria, and Krav (Krav, 2008) in Sweden and Norway.

Aside from these private labels, France has developed a state one,
Label AB (Agriculture Biologique, or ‘organic agriculture’) (Agence Bio,
n.d.), which was created in 1985 by the French Ministry of Agriculture
and promoted through the French Agency for Development and the
Promotion of Organic Agriculture. All such labels provide certification
for organic methods, covering all aspects of environmental agriculture
from animal husbandry to food processing.

Of the other Mediterranean countries, Turkey encourages organic

certification through its Law Nº 5,262 on Organic Agriculture and
related regulations, which include organic aquaculture. The Ministry
of Agriculture and Rural Affairs has also released guidelines for
organic aquaculture.

Labels of origin are another consumer-oriented type of certification,

which guarantees both the country/region of origin of the product
and its originality. They are widely used in international trade to
confer a distinct advantage on the product. Usually the certification
mark carries all the necessary information on the product for the
consumer.

An example is the French system of appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC:

‘registered designation of origin’). It is certification granted to certain
wines, cheeses, butters, and other agricultural produce from delimited
geographical areas, under the auspices of the government bureau Institut
national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO). AOC means that the products
are produced in a consistent, traditional manner with ingredients from
specifically classified producers in designated geographical areas. Many
other countries have based their controlled place name systems on the
Guide C

French AOC classification. Italy, for example, grants Denominazione

di Origine Controllata and Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita
(‘registered and guaranteed designation of origin’). This AOC type of
certification may have also led to the development of the European
Union’s protected designation of origin (PDO) system.

40
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

Beyond the types of certification described above, the industry may want to
take a further step to comply with responsible and sustainable practices by
becoming certified for its entire chain of custody. Some types of certification
provide for this approach by covering all activities within the chain of
custody, certifying that all stages from production to sale comply with their
set of standards. This type of certification ensures traceability throughout
the entire chain, and requires that all stages of production, distribution and
sale of the product must be independently evaluated.

For instance, the MSC certification scheme has a Chain of Custody certificate.
Each member of the supply chain, including processors, retailers and
restaurants, must be certified up to the point of applying the label to the
product. Products with a certified supply chain will be eligible to carry
the MSC logo, whereas products with a non-certified supply chain will
not. Certification of the supply chain is carried out by an MSC accredited
certifier. This certifier must consider all parts of the supply chain (from
fishing vessel to end consumer) when assessing the supply chain against
the MSC Chain of Custody standard. The supply chain will often involve a
number of different companies. It is up to the certifier to determine how
thoroughly to assess the Chain of Custody applicant. The certifier will
pay particular attention to any steps in the supply chain where products
from a fishery certified to the MSC standard could be mixed with products
from non-certified fisheries. This approach is very challenging, however, as
every step has to be monitored.

Misrepresentation of the term ‘organic’

The word ‘organic’ is central to organic certification (and organic food
marketing), but it may also be open to question. Where organic laws exist,
producers cannot use the term legally without certification. To bypass
this legal requirement for certification, various alternative certification
approaches, using currently undefined terms like ‘authentic’ and ‘natural’
instead of ‘organic’, are emerging. In the UK, the interests of smaller-
scale growers who use ‘natural’ growing methods are represented by the
Wholesome Food Association, which issues a symbol based largely on trust
and peer-to-peer inspection. By reducing complex issues and regulations to
a simple, convenient ‘certified organic’ label, consumers may more easily
ignore the principles and practices behind organics, leaving the definition of
organic production and organic food open to manipulation.

41
 Aquaculture Responsible Practices and Certification

Justification
Types of certification schemes

Both industry and end consumers are showing increasing interest in the
various types of certification in order to better identify and acknowledge
responsible and sustainable practices.

Mediterranean aquaculture producers should look for opportunities related

to sustainability and quality schemes, thus taking the lead in this field.

Principle
Existing categories and types of certification schemes should be examined
in order to address some aspects of the sustainable development of
aquaculture.

Guidelines
Certification schemes should be accessible to participants, by
being affordable, applicable and comprehensible.

Existing types of certification should contribute to the

sustainable development of aquaculture. Their limitations may
lead to the creation of a new type of certification in the future to
better embrace sustainability.

Certification should allow and encourage fair trade, avoid

creating unnecessary obstacles to trade and not be more trade-
restrictive than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objective of the
standards. They should also facilitate market access and provide an
opportunity to penetrate domestic and international markets.
Guide C

42
 Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

Certifying sustainability

This guide looks at the possible ways to certify sustainability and

the obstacles to doing so. Sustainability is quite complex to achieve.
It involves many parameters at various levels: economic, social and
environmental. It can
be addressed at various
scales in space as well
as time. This guide
provides insights and
arguments to examine
how sustainability
might be covered by a
certification scheme,
involving measurement
and indicators.

Current situation © Olivier Barbaroux, Ifremer

Bases of sustainable
development

The bases of sustainability are often discussed. In this guide, as well

as in all the work carried out by the IUCN/FEAP working group on
aquaculture, sustainability includes three levels, or rests on three pillars,
which are the economy, society and the environment.

Environment
Society
• Environmental acceptability
Economy • Social equity
Guide D

• Economic viability

Figure 1. The bases of the sustainable development

43
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 In good season, on the morning of the 8th, the boats of the fleet
formed in line abreast, in the same order in which the troops,
consisting of the first division of about six thousand men, were to
form when landed. They then pulled rapidly towards the beach,
which extends between the Castle or Fort of Aboukir and the river
Sed. The whole of the landing arrangements were in charge of
Captain Cochrane, of the Ajax; and the boats were partially
protected, in their landing, by the guns of armed cutters, gun-boats,
and launches, as well as by three sloops and two bomb-vessels.

CAPTURE OF ALEXANDRIA, 1801.

As soon as the boats got near the shore a very sharp and steady
fire of grape and musketry was opened upon them from behind the
sand hills, while Aboukir fort, on the right, kept up a very galling fire
of heavy shot and shell. But the boats pushed on, without check or
confusion, the beach was gained, and a footing on dry land obtained.
They then formed and advanced, and soon obtained possession of
all the points from which the French were annoying them. The boats
then returned, without delay, for the second division; and before
night the whole army, with sufficient stores for present wants, was
safely landed. Few except naval men can appreciate the difficulties
to be encountered in such an operation as this, especially when the
landing is upon an open coast, and such an undertaking,
accomplished quickly and in good order, and without loss, is always
considered extremely creditable.
A detachment of 1000 seamen, under Captain Sir Sidney Smith,
formed part of the landing force. Their duty was to drag the cannon
up the sand hills, a service which they performed in a manner which
called forth the applause of the army, and in which they suffered
considerably. The French, when driven from the hill, left behind them
seven pieces of artillery and a considerable number of horses.
On the 12th the British army moved forward, and came in sight of
the French position, which was an advantageous one, along the
ridge, their left resting upon the sea and their right upon the canal of
Alexandria, better known to us, in late operations there, as the
Mahmoudieh canal.
The French had received reinforcements, under General Lanusse,
and numbered about 7000. The following day a battle was fought, in
which the seamen, under Sir Sidney Smith, and the marines of the
fleet, under Colonel Smith, bore a full share. At the termination of the
action the English took up a position within three miles of Alexandria.
This movement caused the capitulation of Aboukir castle.
On March 21st occurred the decisive battle of the campaign. The
French made a desperate attack upon the English lines, about an
hour before daylight, but, after a bloody and desperate contest
against greatly superior numbers, were forced to retire. The British
sustained a very heavy loss, however, and the Commanding
General, Sir Ralph Abercrombie, was mortally wounded, living only a
few days. In this battle the seamen again participated, and Sir
Sidney Smith was among the wounded.
Alexandria was now completely shut in; and no very important
event took place until August 16th, when a naval force under Sir
Sidney Smith made a demonstration of attack upon the city, and the
French set fire to their flotilla, lying in the harbor. A week after this
the fortified castle of Marabout, which protects the entrance to the
western harbor of Alexandria, surrendered to a combined naval and
military attack. This fort is about eight miles west of the city, and is
one of those about which we heard so much in the late
bombardment by the British iron-clads. On the nearer approach of
the combined forces the garrison of Alexandria sank several vessels
to block up the channel, and brought their few remaining ships
nearer to the town. But these were expiring efforts. On the 27th of
August General Menou sent to Lieutenant-General Hutchinson, who
had succeeded Abercrombie, to request a three days’ armistice. This
was granted, and on September 2d, Alexandria and its garrison
capitulated.
Recent events have made these operations once more interesting.
General Hutchinson (afterwards Lord Donoughmore) was, like Sir
Garnet Wolseley, an Irishman, and their careers are, in many
respects, alike.
Hutchinson entered the English army in 1774, as a cornet of
dragoons, and in nine years rose to the rank of colonel. A Major-
General in 1796, he became second in command in Egypt in 1801,
as a Lieutenant-General, and succeeded to the command on
Abercrombie’s death. He advanced, like Wolseley, as far as Cairo,
when a capitulation took place, and the war ended.
 THE CUTTING OUT OF THE CHEVRETTE. JULY,
A. D. 1801.

he cutting out of vessels from harbors and from

under the protection of shore batteries, belongs
exclusively to a past condition of naval warfare.
Even under the peculiar conditions of our late civil
war and blockade, cutting-out expeditions, when
the object was the capture of an armed vessel,
were not so numerous as might have been
supposed, although most remarkable and gallant
actions were performed in this way by both sides.
As an example of a “cutting-out expedition,” we
are tempted to give that of the French 20-gun
corvette Chevrette. Such actions are decisive, on
account of the discouragement and destruction of
morale brought upon the defeated side, and by the corresponding
confidence and elation of the victors.
In the summer of 1801 the French and Spanish combined fleet
was lying in Brest harbor, with Admiral Cornwallis and a British fleet
watching them. The more effectually to prevent the Franco-Spanish
fleet from getting to sea without his knowledge, the Admiral had
detailed a squadron of three frigates, under Captain Brisbane, of the
Doris, to lie off Point Mathias, in full view of the combined fleet.
During the month of July these frigates observed the French
corvette Chevrette at anchor in Camaret Bay, under some batteries;
a position considered by the French almost as secure as Brest
harbor, and a capital place for a cruiser to lie and watch the chances
of the blockade to get to sea. In spite of her position under the
batteries, the British resolved to attempt her capture. Accordingly, on
the night of the 20th of July, the boats of the Beaulieu and Doris
frigates, manned entirely by volunteers, and all under the orders of a
Lieutenant Losack, who had been sent in from the flag-ship, by
Admiral Cornwallis, to take the command, proceeded on the
enterprise. The boats soon separated, the crews of the faster ones
being too zealous and excited to slacken their efforts, so that the
heavier boats could not keep up with them. We can readily imagine,
too, that a strange officer, sent in by influence, to command such an
expedition, would not receive as cheerful support as would one of
their own. Some of the boats got lost, and returned to the ships; the
rest, after reaching the entrance to the bay, where they expected to
be joined by their companions, lay upon their oars until daybreak.
They then pulled back to their ships. But the mischief was done; they
had been discovered from the corvette and from the shore, and the
effect was to put them on their guard, and prevent any good being
got from a surprise, in case of a renewed attempt.
On the 21st the Chevrette got under way, and after running about
a mile and a half further up the bay, moored again, under some
heavy batteries on the shore. Here she took on board a number of
soldiers, sufficient to bring up her number on board to about three
hundred and forty.
Her guns were loaded with grape, and every preparation made to
resist to the last. The shore batteries were also prepared; and
temporary redoubts were thrown up at adjacent points, while a gun-
boat was moored as a guard-boat at the entrance of the bay. All
these precautions taken, the corvette saucily displayed, in defiance,
a large French ensign above an English one, which could be plainly
seen from the anchorage of the English frigates.
The English now had their pride aroused, and that very night,
about ten o’clock, the boats of the three frigates, with the barge and
pinnace of the Robust, 74, and numbering fifteen in all, and still
commanded by Lieutenant Losack, proceeded to try the French
corvette a second time.
Shortly after starting Lieut. Losack, with his own and five other
boats, went in pursuit of a lookout boat of the French, which it was
important to secure. The rest of the boats were directed to await the
return of the commanding officer. After waiting for a considerable
time, without his return, the officer next in command, Lieut. Keith
Maxwell, of the Beaulieu, considering that the boats had at least six
miles to pull, and that the night was already far advanced, resolved
to proceed without him.
They did so at once, after he had given orders that, while one
party was engaged in disarming the enemy’s crew on deck, the
smartest top-men of the Beaulieu should fight their way aloft and cut
loose the sails; others were detailed to cut the cables, and others to
go to the wheel. Some other arrangements made, the nine boats,
under Maxwell, bent to their oars, and steered for the enemy.
At one o’clock in the morning of the 22d, the nine boats came in
sight of the Chevrette, and the latter, after hailing, opened a heavy
fire of grape and musketry upon her assailants, and this was
seconded by a fire of musketry from the shore. But the boats pulled
steadily on, and the Beaulieu’s boats, under Maxwell himself,
boarded the vessel on the starboard bow and quarter. Those of the
Uranie, one of the Robust’s, and one of the Doris’ boarded on the
port bow. These latter had been cheered on by the gallant Lieut.
Martin Neville, who was conspicuous throughout, and who was
wounded. The attempt to board was most obstinately resisted by the
French, with fire-arms, sabres, tomahawks and pikes; and they, in
their turn, boarded the boats. During this formidable opposition over
the side of the vessel the English lost most of their fire-arms; but, by
obstinate fighting, at last forced their way on board, mostly armed
with their cutlasses alone. Those who had been ordered to go aloft
fought their way to the rigging; and, although some were killed, and
others wounded, the remainder gained the corvette’s yards. Here
they found the foot-ropes strapped up, but they soon managed to
loose the sails, and, in the midst of the fight still going on for the
possession of the deck, down came the Chevrette’s three top-sails
and courses. The cable having, in the meantime, been cut outside
the ship, she began, under a light breeze from the land, to drift out of
the bay.
No sooner did the Frenchmen (who had up to that time, been
fighting most gallantly), see the sails fall, and their ship under way,
than they lost heart. Some of them jumped overboard, and made for
the shore; while others dropped their arms, and ran below, so that
the English got possession of the quarter-deck and forecastle; but
the corvette’s crew that had fled below still maintained a hot fire from
the main deck, and from up the hatchways, and it took a
considerable time before these were overpowered, and compelled to
submit.
It is related in the Naval Chronicle that Mr. Brown, Boatswain of
the Beaulieu, in boarding, forced his way into the Chevrette’s quarter
gallery, but found the door so securely barricaded that he could not
force it. Through the crevices in the planks he could see men, armed
with pikes and pistols, who frequently shot at him through the panels,
as he attempted to burst in. Failing in the quarter gallery, he tried the
quarter, and after a great deal of resistance, gained the vessel’s
taffrail. The officer in command of the party was at this time fighting
his way up on the quarter, but not yet on board. The boatswain stood
up for a moment, a mark for the enemy’s fire, seeing in which
direction he should attack. Second nature then directed him to make
for the forecastle, where he felt most at home; and gathering a few
men, and waving his cutlass, with “Make a lane there!” dashed in,
and fought his way the whole length of the ship. Then, with the men
animated by his example he soon cleared the forecastle, which he
held for the rest of the contest, although frequently assailed. Here,
after the vessel was carried, he was seen attending to orders from
the quarter-deck, and assisting in casting the ship and making sail,
with as much coolness as if he had been on board the Beaulieu.
On her way out of the bay, during a short interval of calm, the
Chevrette became exposed to a heavy fire from the batteries on
shore; but the fair, light breeze soon arose again, and carried her
clear of them. Just at this time the six boats under Lieut. Losack
joined her, and Lieut. Maxwell, was, of course, superseded in his
command, but not until he had accomplished all that there was to be
done.
Three two-deckers got under way and came out from Brest Roads
with the view of recapturing the Chevrette; but the near approach of
the British in-shore squadron compelled them to return to their
anchorage, and the captors carried off their prize safely. In this
spirited engagement the English had eleven killed, fifty-seven
wounded, and one drowned. The latter was in one of the English
boats sunk by the French shot.
 The Chevrette lost her captain, two lieutenants, three midshipmen,
one lieutenant of soldiers, and eighty-five seamen and troops killed;
and one lieutenant, four midshipmen, and fifty-seven seamen and
troops wounded; total, 92 killed and 62 wounded.
BOAT ATTACK UPON THE FRENCH FLOTILLA, AT
BOULOGNE. A. D. 1801.

nother boat attack of the English upon the French,

in the same year as the cutting-out of the
Chevrette, did not result so favorably for the
attacking party, even if their exertions were
directed by no less a person than Lord Nelson
himself.
The fall of the year 1801 was the season
decided upon by Napoleon for putting in
execution his famous plan for invading England.
As this became known it was thought desirable,
by his vigilant and powerful enemies on the other
side of the Channel, to attack the flotilla of gun-
boats and small craft which he had collected at
Boulogne, and other ports, for the conveyance of his army.
Accordingly, on July 30th, Vice-Admiral Lord Nelson hoisted his flag
on board the frigate Medusa, 32, then lying in the Downs, as
commander-in-chief, not only of the squadron for the special service,
but of all the defences constructing along the south shores of
England, from Orfordness to Beachey Head.
On the 3d of August Lord Nelson, having with him about thirty
vessels, great and small, stood across to Boulogne, the port whence
it was supposed the main attempt would be made against England,
and which the French, fearing attack themselves, had recently been
fortifying with considerable care.
On the morning of the 4th the English bomb-vessels threw their
shells among the French flotilla, which consisted of twenty-four brigs,
many lugger-rigged flats, and a schooner, anchored in line in front of
the town. These brigs were vessels of about 200 tons, and generally
armed with from four to eight heavy long guns. The lugger-flats drew
but about three or four feet of water, had very stout bulwarks, and
were armed with a 13-inch mortar, a long gun, swivels and small
arms. They each carried about thirty men in crew, and one hundred
and fifty soldiers besides. Bonaparte had an immense number of
these lugger-flats constructed, all along the northern coast of France,
for the conveyance of his army. It is hard to see how they were to be
successful in accomplishing the object, in that spot of swift, uncertain
tides, irregular currents, and most changeable weather. Nelson’s
bombardment of Boulogne, on the morning of the 4th of August,
amounted to nothing, and he retired.
On the night of August 13th, however, Nelson dispatched the
armed boats of his squadron, formed into four grand divisions, and
commanded by four captains, and accompanied by a division of
mortar-boats, to attempt to capture and bring off the French flotilla at
Boulogne, which had been very much strengthened since the last
attack.
The boats put off from Nelson’s flag-ship at about half past eleven
at night, in perfect order; but the darkness of the night coöperating
with the tides and currents, soon separated the divisions. One of
them, indeed, was obliged to return, and never reached the scene of
action at all. Another division was carried by the currents far to the
eastward, but at length, by dint of great exertion, reached the French
flotilla just before daylight. Some portion of the boats then attacked,
and after a short contest carried, a brig lying close to the pier head,
but were prevented from towing her off, in consequence of her being
secured with chains, and partly because of a heavy fire of musketry
and grape-shot from the shore, and from other vessels moored close
to.
In fact, the English “caught a Tartar,” and, abandoning their single
prize, as the day broke pushed out of the range of French fire. They
had accomplished nothing, and this division, which was commanded
by Captain Somerville, had eighteen killed and fifty-five wounded.
Another division, under Captain Parker, had less trouble from the
current, and got to the scene of action half an hour after midnight.
They attacked one of the largest of the French brigs, most gallantly
and impetuously, but a very strong boarding netting, triced up
completely to her lower yards, baffled the British in their endeavors
to board, while a general discharge of her great guns and small
arms, the latter from about 200 soldiers on board, dashed the
assailants back, bleeding and dazed, into their boats. Some other
vessels were attacked, with a like result, and this division had also to
retire, with a loss of twenty-one killed, and forty-two wounded.
The third and last division of Nelson’s boats which succeeded in
reaching the enemy attacked with the same gallantry, and were
repulsed as decidedly. They had five killed and twenty-nine
wounded. Grand total, 44 killed, and 126 wounded. In addition the
English had to leave behind them not a few of their boats; and the
affair was in every respect a triumph for the French, in spite of the
master mind which conceived it.
 COPENHAGEN. A.D. 1801.

n the year 1800 the surrender of Malta to the English

fleet gave it the mastery in the Mediterranean; and
General Abercrombie, with a British force, landing
at Aboukir Bay, defeated the French army which
Bonaparte had left in Egypt, and which soon after
found itself forced to surrender.
By the evacuation of Egypt, India was secured,
and Turkey was prevented from becoming a
dependency of France.
England now turned her attention to the Northern
coalition.
The treaty of Luneville had left her alone in the
struggle against France.
The Northern powers, wishing to secure their
commerce from insult and capture by the always
increasing naval power of England, had formed a coalition, headed
by the Czar Peter, and revived the claim that a neutral flag should
cover even contraband of war.
Denmark, which had been very active in the combination, was the
first to feel the weight of the anger of the British Cabinet.
The Danish naval force consisted of about ten sail of seventy-fours
and sixty-fours, in fair order, and of about as many more which were
unserviceable. The Russians had about twenty sail available, and
the Swedes eleven sail.
In the month of March, 1801, before the fleets of Sweden and
Russia could join that of Denmark, and thus form a combined fleet
which could hope to resist English encroachments, England
dispatched a fleet to the Cattegat, under Admiral Sir Hyde Parker,
with Lord Nelson as second in command.
This fleet carried a commissioner, with full powers to treat, and
charged to offer to the Danes peace or war. Peace, if they
abandoned the Northern confederation, by opening the passage of
the Sound to England, and by forbidding their men-of-war to protect
their merchant convoys from the arbitrary and insolent visits of
English men-of-war; war, if Denmark wished to preserve her
maritime independence. The Danish government indignantly repelled
the insulting ultimatum: and the English fleet at once forced the
passage of the Sound, in spite of the batteries erected to prevent it.
The King of Denmark had hastened to prepare his Capital and its
surroundings for defence; and the Prince Royal took command of the
whole of the operations, military and naval. As regards the
operations of the British fleet, we shall now follow the English
accounts, as they do not materially differ from those which come
from Danish and French sources. The severe action which followed
redounded to the glory of Nelson (the Commander-in-chief, Sir Hyde
Parker, being quite a secondary character), as well as to the
conspicuous and stubborn courage of the Danes.
We must remember that the great genius of Nelson directed the
best efforts of some of the best and hardiest men-of-war’s men of
the time; while the Danes, after a long peace, were little accustomed
either to stand fire, or to naval evolutions. But, nevertheless, they
fought with devoted bravery; and made a most gallant, though
ineffectual resistance; seldom equaled, and never excelled.
To return to the action. The pilots, who were to take the fleet in,
through very shallow waters, and channels between dangerous
sand-bars, and who were not to share the honors, found it well to
magnify the dangers of the shallow Sound; and their conduct caused
some delay.
During this time, Sir Hyde Parker sent a flag of truce to the
Governor of Elsinore, to inquire if he meant to oppose the passage
of the fleet through the Sound. It is almost impossible to imagine a
greater insult to a weak nation, than such an inquiry. Governor
Stricker, to his honor, replied that the guns of the Castle would
certainly be fired at any British ships of war which approached. At
length, on the morning of the 30th of March, the British fleet weighed
anchor, from a point at the entrance of the Sound, and, with the wind
about northwest, and consequently fair, proceeded into the Sound, in
line ahead. The English fleet was composed of the 98-gun ship
London, Sir Hyde Parker’s flag-ship, and the St. George, 98, with the
flag of Vice-Admiral Lord Nelson. There were, in addition, eleven
74s, five 64s, one 54, one 50, one 38, two 36s, and one 32.
Of these, six 74s, three 64s, and all the smaller vessels were
afterwards placed under Nelson’s orders, and bore the brunt of the
battle.
As the fleet entered the Sound, the van division was commanded
by Lord Nelson, in the Elephant, a 74 (into which ship, as a lighter
and more active one than the St. George, he had, on the preceding
day, shifted his flag), the centre division by the Commander-in-chief,
and the rear division by Rear-Admiral Graves. At seven the batteries
at Elsinore commenced firing at the Monarch, which was the leading
ship, and at the other ships, as they passed in succession. The
distance was, however, so great, that not a shot struck the ships;
and only the van ships fired in return, and even those did not fire
more than three broadsides. A gun burst on one of the English ships,
and killed seven men, and this comprised the whole loss in the
passage of the Sound. The English bomb-vessels, seven in number,
threw shell at the Danes, however, and thereby killed and wounded a
few in Cronenberg and Helsingen. As the Strait at Elsinore is less
than three miles across, a mid-channel passage would have
exposed the ships to a fire from Cronenberg Castle on the one side,
and from the Swedish town of Helsinborg on the other; but the latter
had very inconsiderable batteries, and did not make even a show of
opposition. On observing this, the British inclined to the Swedish
shore, passing within less than a mile of it, and thus avoiding a fire
that, coming from nearly one hundred pieces of cannon, could not
fail to have been destructive.
About noon the fleet anchored at some distance above the Island
of Huën, which is about fifteen miles distant from Copenhagen.
Sir Hyde Parker, Vice-Admiral Nelson, and Rear-Admiral Graves,
then proceeded, in a lugger, to reconnoitre the Danish defences; and
they soon ascertained that they were of considerable strength. In
consequence of this discovery a council of war was held in the
evening, with the usual result, a majority urging an abandonment of
the enterprise, or, at least, a delay in the attack. But Nelson
prevailed, and offered, if given ten sail-of-the-line, and all the small
craft, to accomplish the business before them.
 Admiral Parker complied, without hesitation; and he, moreover,
granted Nelson two more ships of-the-line than he had asked for. It
required light-draft ships for the work in hand, for the force at
Copenhagen was not the only obstacle to be overcome. It was
approached by an intricate channel, but little known.
To increase the difficulty, the Danes had removed or misplaced the
buoys. That same night Lord Nelson himself, accompanied by
Captain Brisbane and some others, proceeded to sound and buoy
the outer channel, a narrow passage lying between the Island of
Saltholm and the Middle Ground. This was a very difficult and
fatiguing duty, but was duly accomplished.
An attack from the eastward was at first contemplated; but a
second examination of the Danish position, on the next day, as well
as a favorable change in the wind, determined Nelson to commence
operations from the southward.
On the morning of the 1st of April the British fleet weighed anchor,
and soon came to again to the northwest of the Middle Ground, a
shoal that extends along the whole sea front of the City of
Copenhagen, leaving an intervening channel of deep water, called
the Konigstiéfe, about three-quarters of a mile wide. In this channel,
close to the town, the Danes had moored their block-ships, radeaus,
praams (or armed lighters), and other gun-vessels. In the course of
the forenoon Lord Nelson reconnoitred, for the last time, the position
he was about to attack; and upon his return, about one in the
afternoon, the signal to weigh appeared at the Elephant’s mast-
head, and the division set sail, with a light and favorable wind.
Nelson had, in addition to his force already given, been joined by
one 28, two 24s, and two 18-gun sloops, making his whole force to
consist of thirty-two sail, large and small.
Captain Riou led, in the Amazon, 38, and the ships entered the
upper channel, and coasted along the edge of the Middle Ground,
until they reached and partly rounded the southern extremity. Here
they anchored, about eight o’clock in the evening, just as it grew
dark; and they were then about two miles from the southernmost
ship of the Danish line of defence.
The same northwesterly wind that had been fair for passing along
the outer channel, was now as foul for advancing by the inner one. It
was also necessary to wait for daylight, in such intricate navigation.
The night was passed in taking soundings, and the depth was
ascertained, up to the Danish line.
The additional vessels, consisting of seven bomb-ships, two fire-
ships, and six gun-brigs were brought in; and then there was nothing
to do but wait until morning, as the few shells thrown by the Danes
burst harmlessly.
We must now look at the Danish force. It consisted of eighteen
vessels, of different kinds. Some old and dismantled two-decked
ships, frigates, praams and radeaus, mounting, altogether, 628 guns,
were moored in a line of about a mile in extent. These were flanked
at the north end, or that nearest the town, by two artificial islands,
called the Trekroner batteries, one of thirty 24-pounders, and the
other of thirty-eight 36-pounders, with furnaces for heating shot; and
both of them commanded by two two-decked block-ships.
The entrance to the docks and harbor, in the heart of the city, was
protected by a chain, and by batteries; while, in addition, the 74-gun
ships Dannemark and Trekroner, a frigate, and some large gun-
vessels (some of them with furnaces for hot shot), were moored
about the harbor’s mouth. Several batteries were built along the
shore of Amaag Island, to the southward of the floating line of
defence; while the indignant Danes flocked to man the works,
animated by the desire to repel the invaders by every possible
means.
Morning dawned, on the second of April, with a southeasterly
wind, which was favorable to the English. As soon as signals could
be seen, one was made for all Captains to repair on board the flag-
ship, when their stations were assigned them. The line-of-battle
ships were intended to anchor by the stern, abreast of the vessels of
the enemy’s line. Most of the frigates and the fire-ships were to
operate against the vessels at the harbor’s mouth. The bomb-
vessels were to take their stations outside the British line, so as to
throw their shells over it; while two frigates and some gun-vessels
and brigs were to take a position for raking the southern extremity of
the Danish line. The 49th English Regiment, which was on board
some of the vessels, and five hundred seamen, under Captain
Freemantle, of the Ganges, were intended, at the proper time, to
storm the principal of the Trekroner batteries. Of course this was to
be when the ships had silenced its fire.
By nine o’clock everything was ready; a silence reigned before the
storm began, and “the stoutest held their breath for a time.”
But now Nelson was hampered by the hesitation and indecision of
the pilots.
At last Mr. Briarly, the Master of the Bellona, undertook to lead the
fleet in, and for that purpose went on board the Edgar; and at half-
past nine the ships began to weigh, in succession. The Edgar led.
The Agamemnon was to follow, but was unable to weather the shoal,
and was forced to bring to again, in only six fathoms of water.
Although she tried again, by warping, the current was such that
Nelson’s old and favorite ship was utterly unable to get any nearer.
Two more ships succeeded in following the Edgar, but the third,
the Bellona, 74, got aground, abreast of the Danish block-ship
Provesteen, and the Russell, 74, following her, had the same
mishap. They were within long gun-shot. In compliance with the wish
of the pilots, each ship had been ordered to pass her leader on the
starboard side, from a supposition that the water shoaled on the
other shore; in fact, the water kept deepening all the way to the
Danish line. The Elephant came next, and Lord Nelson, perceiving
the situation of the ships aground, by a happy stroke, ordered his
helm to be put to starboard, and passed within those ships, as did, in
safety, all those who came after him. Had it not been for this, most of
the large vessels would have run ashore, and been practically
useless. As soon as Lord Nelson’s squadron weighed, Sir Hyde
Parker’s eight ships did the same, and took up a new position to the
north, but too far off on account of shoal water, to effect much by
their fire.
At ten o’clock the fire opened, and by half-past eleven, as the
ships came into their stations, the action became general. Owing to
the strength of the current, the Jamaica, 28, and many of the English
gun-boats were unable to get into a position to be of much service,
while the fire of the bomb-vessels was not nearly so destructive as
had been expected.
The absence of the Bellona and Russell, 74s, and of the
Agamemnon, 64, was much felt, as it caused some of the British
vessels which got in to have more than their share of fire.
And now the two lines were enveloped in powder smoke and
flame for three long hours. Horrible scenes, and dreadful wounds
and destruction always follow a bombardment by the heavy guns
which ships carry, as compared with the field artillery of a land battle.
During all this time the fight was maintained with a courage and
persistence seldom equalled, and never excelled.
At the end of three hours’ very heavy firing, few, if any, of the
Danish block-ships, praams, or radeaus had ceased firing; nor could
the contest be said to have taken a decisive turn for either side. To
use a vulgar but expressive saying, the English had “a hard nut to
crack” in the Danes. At this time signals of distress were flying at the
mast-heads of two English line-of-battle ships, and a signal of
inability on board a third.
Sir Hyde Parker, from his distance from the scene of action, could
judge but imperfectly of the condition of affairs. Observing the slow
progress, and zig-zag courses of the Defence and Ramillies, 74s,
and the Veteran, 64, which he had despatched as a reinforcement to
his Vice-Admiral, he argued that matters were not progressing
favorably for the attacking force; and so he threw out the signal for
discontinuing the engagement. Had this been done, the last ships to
retire, of the English, as well as those on shore, would have been
placed in a most dangerous predicament. Lord Nelson chose, on this
occasion, to disobey orders. It is a remarkable fact that, with regard
to discipline, some of the greatest leaders have been the most
recusant. No one can deny Lord Nelson’s genius as a leader of
fleets, but all who are interested in navies must regret the example
he set upon this occasion. He, himself, would have had any man
shot who disobeyed orders, under fire, as he did Sir Hyde Parker’s.
The result obtained by his disobedience justifies the act, in the civil
mind; but the far-reaching effects of disobedience of the kind can
only be estimated by those who have served in fleets or armies.
The three frigates and two sloops nearest to the London and her
division, did, without question, obey the signal, and hauled off from
the Trekroner batteries. The gallant Captain Riou, of the Amazon,
was shot in two, and that frigate sustained her greatest loss in
obeying Sir Hyde Parker’s order, which required him to present his
stern to one of the Trekroner batteries.
When Sir Hyde Parker made the signal to retire, it was reported to
Nelson by his signal lieutenant. He continued to walk the deck, and
appeared to take no notice of it. The signal officer met him at the
next turn, and asked him if he should repeat the signal, as is usual
with those coming from a Commander-in-chief to a second in
command.
“No,” said Nelson, “acknowledge it.”
Presently, Nelson asked the signal lieutenant if the signal for close
action was still hoisted; and being answered in the affirmative, said,
“Mind you keep it so!”
“He now paced the deck, moving the stump of his lost arm in a
manner that, with him, always indicated great emotion. ‘Do you
know,’ said he, ‘what is shown on board the Commander-in-chief?’
‘Number 39!’ Mr. Fergusson asked him what that meant. ‘Why, to
leave off action.’ Then, shrugging up his shoulders, he repeated the
words ‘leave off action? now d—n me if I do! You know, Foley,’
turning to the captain of his flag-ship, ‘I have only one eye, I have a
right to be blind sometimes,’ and then, putting the glass to his blind
eye, in that mood of mind which sports with bitterness, he exclaimed,
‘I really do not see the signal.’ Presently he exclaimed ‘D—n the
signal! Keep mine for closer battle flying! That’s the way I answer
such signals. Nail mine to the mast.’”
 BATTLE OF COPENHAGEN.

About two o’clock in the afternoon the fire of the Danes had begun
to slacken; and soon after it had ceased along nearly their whole
line. Some of their light vessels and floating batteries had got adrift,
and some had struck their colors, but could not be taken possession
of for the reason that the nature of the action was such that the
crews were continually reinforced from the shore; and fresh men
coming on board did not inquire whether the flag had been struck, or,
perhaps, did not heed it; many, or most of them, never having been
engaged in war before, and knowing nothing, therefore, of its laws,
thought only of defending their country to the last extremity. The
firing on the boats which went to take possession of those Danish
vessels whose flags were not flying greatly irritated Nelson; who, at
one time, had thoughts of sending in the fire-ships, to burn such
vessels.
During the pause in the action, he sent a letter to the Danish
Crown Prince, in which he said, according to Southey, “Vice-Admiral
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com