1

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MARITIME AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND MARKETS TRADE AND MARKETS

Summary of the public consultation on an EU

ecolabel for fishery and aquaculture products

Draft

09/09/2015

2

1 Introduction This report presents an overview of the results of the Commission’s public consultation on an EU

ecolabel for fishery and aquaculture products. The first section of the report provides contextual

background information to the public consultation. The main body of the report contains the

analysis of responses received from the internet-based questionnaire. The report is intended to

present an overview of the outcomes of the public consultation and the results form part of a larger

study that includes bilateral consultations, a review of existing literature and assessment of different

ecolabel options.

1.1 Background Within the fisheries and aquaculture sector and amongst retailers of fisheries and aquaculture

products the pursuit of environmental credibility in general and ecolabelling in particular has

become increasingly important in recent years. As a result, the way in which claims are made can

have a strong influence for both business to business (B2B) and business to consumer (B2C)

relationships. In this context ecolabels for fisheries and aquaculture products represent award

schemes for products that meet label-specific environmental standards. Ecolabel schemes have

emerged on the EU market at the end of the 1990’s for fisheries and in the early 2000’s in

aquaculture. This development has been supported by increasing public awareness of the need to

ensure sustainable exploitation of marine resources. The EU is by far the main market for certified

products.

The Commission is currently reviewing the role that public authorities could play in this field and this

public consultation, represents part of a process that includes an analysis of legislation and

initiatives, an overview of existing ecolabels for fisheries and aquaculture, a market analysis as well

as a series of bilateral consultations.

1.2 Sample representativeness and limitations The survey was an internet-based public consultation and as a result, does not represent a

structured survey with a sampling methodology or sample control. The consultation was publicised

widely but respondents chose to participate and those that did had to have internet access. Because

of this, the results do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the EU population as a whole, but

represent of the views of those who are interested in ecolabels for fisheries and aquaculture

products and the role of public bodies, that were aware of the consultation and had the inclination

and ability to complete the online questionnaire. In presenting the results each questionnaire is

considered to be equal in weight such that the responses of NGOs and companies carry are

equivalent to those of individual members of the public.

The number of questionnaires completed was 443 representing responses from 24 Member States

and 12 non EU countries. The consultation questionnaire was completed by a range of different

actors including NGOs, professional organisations involved in fisheries and aquaculture as well as

certification and members of the public. Participant representation by stakeholder group and EU

Member State was not uniform, for example a high proportion of respondents were individual

consumers and there was little representation from public institutions.

3

Furthermore, it should be noted that for many of the questions there was a relatively high

proportion of participants who did not respond to the question or statement, in some cases this was

almost 50%. Through bilateral consultations it has been brought to our attention that some

associations invited their members to take part in the public consultation but decided to answer only

specific questions.

2 Methodology A public consultation questionnaire was developed to elicit stakeholder’s views, opinions and

knowledge on fishery and aquaculture ecolabels, with a particular focus on the feasibility of an EU

ecolabel. The scope of the questionnaire was comprehensive, covering several topics which explored

stakeholder perceptions and experiences of ecolabelling schemes. Questions were divided into

seven main sections:

Use of ecolabels, covering awareness and the degree to which the survey participant’s buy / sell / use ecolabelled products;

Reasons for use, relating to the factors which influence stakeholders to use ecolabelled products;

Barriers to use, relating to the factors which influence participant’s not to use ecolabelled products;

Impacts and issues, focusing on the issues surrounding ecolabels and the impacts ecolabelling schemes have had;

Indirect benefits, focusing on the potential benefits of ecolabels outside of their direct objectives;

Models and costs, exploring the costs associated with the ecolabel certification process;

Future of fisheries and aquaculture, exploring potential role of the EU in the relation to ecolabel schemes.

The questionnaire was structured with a common front end to identify stakeholder particulars

(type/nationality etc.), and then separate short questionnaires for different stakeholder groups that

identified their interest in and relationship with ecolabels, their perceptions of the different issues

associated with them (both advantages and disadvantages), and the possible shape of public

intervention. These separate questionnaires reflect the different issues amongst stakeholders (e.g.

consumers: confidence/confusion; industry: cost/market access).

Recognising the importance of language aspects, the questionnaire and questions were designed to

minimise the risks associated with translation of the questions and also the need for extensive

translation of the response. For example, stakeholders were requested to provide information in a

pre-determined context (closed-ended questions, Lickert scales etc.).

The questionnaire was translated into all EU languages and was launched on the EU Survey website

and was live for 12 weeks as per EU guidelines on better regulation

3 Results

3.1 Analysis of participants In total, 443 participants took part in the public consultation. Five position papers from stakeholders

were received and are published. A total of 24 EU member states are represented in the responses

to the public consultation, in addition to 12 other non-EU countries.

4

Respondents classified themselves and individual consumers accounted for the largest proportion of

participants at 40%, as shown in Figure 1. There was a relatively similar level of participation from all

other stakeholder groups – between 5% and 9% - apart from ecolabel owners and individual fishers

and fish farmer whose participation proportion was 2%. NGOs accounted for 9% and

research/academic organisations, producer organisations and suppliers each accounted for 8% of

participants as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Distribution of respondent by stakeholder group

The largest number of participants were located in the Netherlands (23%), followed by Spain (16%),

Germany (9%), France (9%) and the UK (7%). A full breakdown of respondent location by country is

shown in Figure 2. An additional breakdown of participant location by stakeholder group is provided

in Figure 3 for the top ten countries. Nearly 80% of participants had knowledge of fisheries and

aquaculture ecolabels, nearly 11% had no knowledge and almost 10% did not respond to the

question. A table summarising the nationalities of respondents classed as ‘Other’ in Figure 2 is

included in Table 1.

5

Figure 2: Distribution of respondent by country

0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00

NetherlandsSpain

GermanyFrance

United KingdomBelgium

OtherItaly

SwedenPortugalRomaniaDenmark

AustriaFinlandGreeceIrelandPoland

LithuaniaCroatia

LuxembourgEstonia

MaltaCyprus

BulgariaLatvia

% of respondents

6

Figure 3: Stakeholder group participation in top ten countries

Table 1: Given nationalities included under ‘Other’ in Figure 2

Country No. of

participants

Norway 8

Europe 3

Switzerland 2

Australia 1

Ecuador 1

Iceland 1

International 1

Pacific 1

Pacific Islands 1

Peru 1

Sri Lanka 1

Tunisia 1

United States 1

Zambia 1

3.2 ‘Use’ and ‘favour’ of ecolabels

3.2.1 Buying, selling and participating

Seven stakeholder groups (326 participants) were asked questions about their ‘use’ of ecolabels.

Consumer groups and individual consumers (203 participants) were asked if they buy ecolabelled

products; retailers and suppliers (57 participants) were asked if they sell ecolabelled products, and

7

producer organisations, fishing/aquaculture companies and individual fishers/fish farmers (66

participants) were asked if they participate in ecolabel schemes.

Across all types of ‘use’ (buying, selling and participating) 66% of all respondents use ecolabels, with

9% doing so exclusively. A breakdown between stakeholder groups and use type is presented in

Figure 4. Almost 80% of consumer respondents (groups and individuals) buy ecolabels, although only

9% do so exclusively. Nearly 70% of retailer and supplier respondents sell ecolabelled products,

however only 10% exclusively sell ecolabelled products. A quarter of all respondents do not use

ecolabels; non-use is highest in fishing/aquaculture companies and individual fishers/fish farmers, of

which 35% do not participate in ecolabelling schemes for fisheries or aquaculture products.

Figure 4: ‘Use’ of ecolabels

Consumer groups and individual consumers were asked to indicate their extent of agreement with a

range of statements (presented in Table 2) relating to why they buy ecolabelled products. It should

be noted that for each statement between 34% and 35% of participants did not provide a response.

Over a quarter of respondents strongly agree that ecolabels increase the environmental

sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture. Agreement with the statements ranged from 28% to 48%.

The largest proportion of strong disagreement was in relation to ecolabels and food quality. The

breakdown of responses to the statements is presented in Figure 5.

Table 2: Statements relating to why respondents buy ecolabelled products

Statement

Ecolabels improve animal welfare standards

Ecolabels raise food quality/indicate better quality

Ecolabels ensure better social conditions for fishers/fish farmers (e.g. higher wages & better working conditions)

Ecolabels increase the environmental sustainability of fisheries & aquaculture

8

Figure 5: Extent of agreement with statements relating to buying ecolabelled products (percentage)

Retailers and suppliers were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a range of statements

relating to why they sell ecolabelled products. These statements are presented in Table 3, along with

the aggregated levels of agreement and disagreement. The breakdown of this analysis is presented

in Figure 6.

The largest proportions of aggregated agreement (over 70%) are related to corporate social

responsibility, customer satisfaction and brand image. Conversely the largest proportions of

aggregated disagreement are related to maximising profit and price premiums (46%) and external

pressure (39%)

Table 3: Statements relating to why respondents sell ecolabelled product

Statement %

Disagreement %

Agreement

It's part of our corporate social responsibility policy 2 75

To increase customer interest/satisfaction 9 72

To improve our brand image 9 70

Customers were asking for them 11 65

To better compete with other retailers 14 63

To increase sales 18 54

To improve supply-chain management 16 54

To access new markets 30 40

Because of pressure from interest groups or campaigns 39 39

To maximise profits through price premiums 46 21

9

Figure 6: Extent of agreement with statements relating to selling ecolabelled product. Producer

organisations, fishing/aquaculture companies and individual fishers/fish farmers were asked to

indicate their level of agreement with a range of statements relating to why they participate in

ecolabelling schemes. These statements are presented in Table 4 along with the aggregated levels

of agreement and disagreement. The breakdown of this analysis is presented in Figure 7. Aggregated

agreement is largest for those statements relating to product differentiation (53%) and customer

satisfaction (51%). Once again, it should be noted that a large proportion of respondents did not

respond to the statements (almost a half in most cases).

Table 4: Statements relating to why respondents participate in ecolabelling schemes

Statement %

Disagreement %

Agreement

To differentiate our products from other similar products 3 53

To increase customer interest/satisfaction 3 51

To improve our brand image 3 49

Clients/retailers asked for ecolabels 7 44

To access new markets 8 42

To increase sales 7 41

It's part of our corporate social responsibility policy 7 37

Because of pressure from interest groups or campaigns 14 34

To improve supply-chain management 15 31

10

Figure 7: Extent of agreement with statements relating to participating in ecolabelling schemes

A range of statements relating to why participants do not ‘use’ (i.e. bought, sold, participated in)

ecolabels were put to stakeholders, the themes of these statements are presented in Table 5.

Between 30% and 38% of participants agree that there are too many ecolabels, and 25% to 29% of

relevant participants agree that they do not trust ecolabel claims. There was a relatively high level of

disagreement with the statement that participants don’t know about ecolabels (between 49% and

61%). There was little agreement with the statement that participants don’t know what ecolabels

mean (between 12% and 20%). Whilst almost a third of consumers and consumer organisations

agree with the statement that they don’t know which ecolabels to choose, those who sell ecolabels

or participate in the ecolabelling schemes are in disagreement (39% - 46%). Almost half (between

46% and 49%) of stakeholders who participate in ecolabelling schemes agree that certification takes

too long, is too expensive and benefits wouldn’t outweigh the costs. It must be noted that there was

a high proportion (around one third) of no responses. A detailed breakdown of this analysis is

provided in Figure 8.

Table 5: Statements relating to why stakeholders do not ‘use’ ecolabels

Statement Use %

disagreement %

agreement

There are too many ecolabels BUY 17 38

I'm not sure which ecolabel to choose BUY 30 32

I don't trust claims on ecolabels BUY 26 29

I 've heard of ecolabels but I'm not sure what they mean BUY 47 20

Ecolabelled products are too expensive BUY 37 17

I don't know about ecolabels BUY 58 8

Limited supplies of certified fish SELL 21 30

There are too many ecolabels SELL 26 30

I don't trust claims on ecolabels SELL 33 25

No consumer demand SELL 30 23

Ecolabelled products are too expensive SELL 30 23

I'm not sure which ecolabel to choose SELL 39 14

I've heard of ecolabels but I'm not sure what they mean SELL 44 7

11

I don't know about ecolabels SELL 49 2

Certification takes too long PARTICIPATE 12 49

Certification is too expensive PARTICIPATE 10 49

Benefits wouldn't outweigh costs PARTICIPATE 14 46

There are too many ecolabels PARTICIPATE 31 34

No demand from retailers PARTICIPATE 31 24

I'm not sure which ecolabel to choose PARTICIPATE 46 15

I've heard of ecolabels but I'm not sure what they mean PARTICIPATE 56 12

I don't know about ecolabels PARTICIPATE 61 7

12

Figure 8: Reason why stakeholders do not ‘use’ ecolabels.

13

3.2.2 In ‘favour’ of ecolabels?

Public/government bodies, research/academic organisations, and NGO’s (106 participants) were

asked if they are in favour of ecolabels, and where then asked to indicate the extent to which they

agreed or disagreed with statements relating to their response to the ‘in favour’ question.

Of this group of respondents 71% were in favour of fisheries and aquaculture ecolabels, 14% are not

in favour, 8% do not know and 8% of respondents did not provide a response to the question. A

breakdown across the stakeholder groups is provided in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Distribution of favour response by stakeholder group

Participants who are in favour of ecolabels were asked to indicate their extent of agreement with

the statements presented in Table 6. Although 75 participants responded to being in favour of

ecolabels, around 80 participants responded to the statements, therefore the percentages

presented are based on the number of participants who responded to the statements. The vast

majority (90%) agree with the statement that ecolabels increase environmental sustainability of

fisheries and aquaculture practices. More than half of participants agree that their favour of

ecolabels is related to animal welfare, food quality and social improvement. A detailed breakdown of

this analysis is presented in Figure 10.

Table 6: Statements relating to why respondents are in favour of ecolabels

Statement % agreement % disagreement

Ecolabels increase the environmental sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture

90 5

Ecolabels improve animal welfare standards 71 14

Ecolabels raise food quality/indicate better food quality 58 26

Ecolabels ensure better conditions for fishers and fish farmers (e.g. higher wages & better working conditions)

51 25

14

Figure 10: Extent of agreement with statements relating to being in favour of ecolabels.

Participants who are not in favour of ecolabels were asked to indicate their extent of agreement

with the statements presented in Table 7. Only 15 respondents were not in favour of ecolabels,

however around 20 participants responded to the statements. The majority of participants agree

with the statements of there being too many ecolabels (80%) and a lack of trust of ecolabel claims

(75%). Participants generally disagree with the statement relating to what ecolabels mean (85%),

ecolabel knowledge (86%) and uncertainty surrounding ecolabel choice (68%). A further breakdown

of this analysis is presented in Figure 11.

Table 7: Statements relating to why respondents are not in favour of ecolabels

Statement % in agreement % in disagreement

There are too many ecolabels 80 15

I don't trust the claims on ecolabels 75 20

Ecolabelled products are too expensive 45 20

I'm not sure what ecolabel to choose 21 68

I don't know about ecolabels 10 86

I've heard of ecolabels but I'm not sure what they mean

10 85

15

Figure 11: Why stakeholders are not in favour of ecolabels

3.3 Benefits and issues Different stakeholder groups will be aware of, and interested in, different benefits and issues

relating to ecolabels, and as such will have different perspectives on them. A range of targeted

statements relating to the benefits and issues of ecolabels was presented to each stakeholder group,

and in most instances the same or very similar statements were presented to all stakeholder groups.

However, due to the targeted approach of the survey, there are some statements that were only

presented to specific stakeholder groups. The statements have been categorised based both on the

stakeholder group they are targeted towards and the benefit/issues covered.

3.3.1 Consumer benefits and issues

Individual consumers generally agree that ecolabels have increased consumer awareness and have

made it easier for consumer to choose sustainable products with over 50% of participants

responding positively. Interestingly, consumers do not seem to think that ecolabels have increased

consumer confidence. Consumer groups show higher proportion of agreement than disagreement

with consumer awareness, confidence and product choice but percentages are still relatively low. A

breakdown of perspectives is presented in Figure 12.

16

Figure 12: Perspectives on ecolabels and consumer awareness, confidence and product choice

Between 42% and 86% of participants across ten stakeholder groups (excluding ecolabel owners)

agree that consumers do not know what ecolabels mean with an average of 63% agreement (see

Figure 13). A breakdown of responses across stakeholder groups is presented in Figure 14 and

indicates that agreement is highest amongst suppliers, producer organisations, producer companies

and individual producers. Agreement is lowest retailers, consumer groups and individual consumers.

This demonstrates divergent opinions at opposite ends of the supply chain.

Figure 13: Extent of agreement with “consumers don’t know what ecolabels mean” statement

17

Figure 14: Perspectives on consumer understanding of ecolabels

Between 42% and 79% of stakeholders across ten groups (excluding ecolabel owners) agree that

consumers don’t know which ecolabel to choose, with an average of 61% in agreement. Agreement

is highest amongst fishing/aquaculture companies, individual producers and public

bodies/government. Conversely, disagreement is highest amongst retailers and NGOs. A breakdown

of responses by stakeholder group is presented in Figure 16.

Figure 15: Extent of agreement with “consumers don’t know which ecolabel to choose” statement

18

Figure 16: Perspectives on consumers and ecolabel choice

3.3.2 Sustainability and management

All 11 stakeholder groups were presented with the statement “ecolabels have increased

environmental sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture”. Agreement ranged from 26% to 82% with

an average of 53% in agreement (see Figure 17). Less than 20% of participants disagree. Agreement

was highest amongst ecolabel owners, suppliers and retailers, whereas disagreement was highest in

individual producers, producer organisations and fishing/aquaculture companies. A breakdown of

responses by stakeholder group is presented in Figure 18.

Figure 17: Extent of agreement with “ecolabels have increased environmental sustainability” statement

19

Figure 18: Perspectives on ecolabels and environmental sustainability

On average, 49% of participants from seven stakeholder groups agree that ecolabels have improved

fisheries and aquaculture management (see Figure 19). Ecolabel owners show the highest level of

agreement (82%) followed by NGOs (63%) and fishing and aquaculture companies (58%).

Disagreement averages out at less than a quarter of stakeholder participants, with individual

producers and producer organisations displaying the highest levels of disagreement. A breakdown of

responses by stakeholder group is presented in Figure 20.

Figure 19: Extent of agreement with “ecolabels have improved management” statement

20

Figure 20: Perspectives on ecolabels and management

3.3.3 Industry benefits and issues

Supply chain stakeholder groups (i.e. producers, suppliers and retailers) were presented with a range

of statements related to the potential economic/business/market benefits of ecolabelling,

specifically: ecolabels give a competitive advantage; ecolabels have helped producers/retailers

access new markets; ecolabels have increased sales of seafood; and retailers can charge higher

prices for ecolabelled products. The extent of agreement across the seven targeted stakeholder

groups for each statement is presented in Figure 21. Analysis indicates that average agreement with

all statements is less than 50% but the range of agreement levels varies between statements.

Statements on price increases, competitive advantage and market access receive the highest

maximum levels of agreement at 71%, 67% and 63% respectively. Disagreement is highest for the

statement relating to increased seafood sales (37% on average, and maximum of 43%).

21

Figure 21: Extent of agreement with market/economic/business statements

The detailed breakdown of responses to individual statements by stakeholder group is presented in

Figure 22.

22

Figure 22: Perspectives in ecolabels and competitiveness

23

It is generally agreed across all respondents that selling ecolabels is seen as more ethical. Agreement

ranged from 57% to 92% and was highest amongst fishing/aquaculture companies, retailers and

suppliers (see Figure 23).

Figure 23: Perspectives on ecolabels and ethics

Much has been reported about ecolabels and their implications for small-scale operators. Selected

stakeholders were asked their perceptions on whether ecolabels help small scale operators or

whether small scale operators are unable to access ecolabel schemes. On average, 33% of targeted

stakeholders agree that ecolabels have helped small-scale operators with 28% in disagreement. Less

than half of selected stakeholders agreed that small-scale business can’t access ecolabelling

schemes, and a quarter of participants disagreed. A detailed breakdown of responses is presented in

Figure 24.

Figure 24: Perspectives on ecolabels and small scale operators

24

With regards to the issues/barriers/challenges of ecolabels, just under half of producer stakeholders

agree that the cost of certification outweighs the benefits (see Figure 25).

Figure 25: Perspectives on ecolabels and the balance of costs and benefits

3.3.4 Other benefits and issues

Figure 26: Perspectives on ecolabels and developing countries

Figure 27: Perspectives on ecolabels and misleading claims

25

There was low agreement with the statement that “ecolabels have had no impact” (see Figure 28).

Across the stakeholder groups, disagreement with this statement averaged at almost 60% with a

maximum of 82% disagreement (ecolabel owners) and a minimum of 31% disagreement (producer

organisations. A detailed breakdown of responses across stakeholder groups is presented in Figure

29.

Figure 28: Extent of agreement with “ecolabels have had no impact” statement

Figure 29: Perspectives on ecolabel and impact

26

3.3.5 Indirect benefits

Stakeholder groups were presented with a range of statements relating to potential indirect benefits

and asked to indicate their level of agreement. Not all groups were presented with same and all of

the statements. The levels of overall agreement and disagreement with these statements across all

relevant stakeholder groups are presented in Table 8, although it should be noted that 10% of

participants did not respond to the statements. Stakeholders showed relatively high levels of

agreement (over 60%) with statements relating to supplier selection, benchmarking environmental

improvement and consumer purchasing decisions. However, low levels of agreement (less than 40%)

were displayed with statements regarding ecolabel independence and job/business creation

opportunities.

Table 8: Percentage agreement and disagreement across all stakeholder groups with indirect benefits statements

Statement Agree Disagree

Ecolabels are useful because they help companies, e.g. to select suppliers on the basis of sustainability criteria

66 15

Ecolabels are useful because they set a benchmark for all products to improve environmental performance

66 14

Ecolabels are useful because they help consumers choose more sustainable fishery & aquaculture products

63 17

Ecolabels are useful because they contribute to transparency and control 58 19

Ecolabels are useful because they embody criteria that enable companies make accurate and effective sustainability claims

57 15

Ecolabels are useful because they are independent and not biased by input from retailers or public authorities

38 30

Ecolabels are useful because they create job & business opportunities because companies using ecolabels hire new staff with specific skills

30 26

27

Figure 30: Response by statement and stakeholder group

28

Figure 31: Responses by statement and stakeholder group

29

3.4 Costs For those stakeholder groups who have participated in ecolabel schemes (fishing/aquaculture

companies, individual fishers/fish farmers and producer organisations), 15 % passed on costs and

33% did not (52% of participants did not respond to the question). Of those who did pass costs on,

20% passed all costs and 80% passed part of the costs on.

3.5 The role of the EU In response to the question ‘should public/government bodies be involved in ecolabel certification?’

64% of participants said yes, 18% said no, 11% did not know and 7% did not respond to the question.

The breakdown of responses by stakeholder group is presented in Figure 32. Individual consumers,

research/academic organisations and fishing and aquaculture companies were most in favour (over

70% said yes) of public bodies being involved, whereas ecolabel owners were overwhelmingly

against (64% said no) to public body involvement.

Figure 32: Should public bodies be involved in ecolabel certification?

All stakeholder groups were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a range of statements

pertaining to the role of the EU in fisheries and aquaculture ecolabels. The statements are presented

in Table 9. There are high levels of agreement with: the EU helping set up international standards

(74%): the EU setting minimum standards for ecolabels (72%); national authorities checking claims

(70%); and there being control of certification bodies (70%). With regards to the EU crating a special

ecolabel for fishery and aquaculture products, 50% of participants agreed and 35% disagreed. Only

21% of participants agree that the current system should be kept. A detailed breakdown of

agreement and disagreement with the Statements in Table 9 is presented in Figure 33 and Figure 34.

Table 9: Statements relating to the role of the EU

Statement

S1 We should keep the current system

S2 EU should include fisheries & aquaculture standards and products under the existing EU ecolabel

S3 EU should set minimum standards for ecolabels

30

S4 EU and national authorities should control organisations that set technical standards

S5 National authorities should check claims on ecolabels

S6 EU and national authorities should control certification bodies

S7 EU should help set international standards

S8 EU should create a special ecolabel for fishery & aquaculture products

Figure 33: Extent of agreement with statements relating to the role of the EU.

31

Figure 34: Range of agreement levels across statements

Analysis of agreement by stakeholder group indicates that stakeholders were unanimous in their

agreement with the following statements: the EU should set minimum standards for ecolabels;

national authorities should check claims on ecolabels; and the EU should help set international

standards. Statements on control of certification bodies and standard setting organisations received

almost unanimous agreement with only one stakeholder group for each statement failing to reach

50% agreement. There was neither clear agreement nor disagreement amongst stakeholder groups

on the following statements: keeping the current system; including fishery and aquaculture

standards under the existing ecolabel; creating a special EU ecolabel. A detailed breakdown of

responses by statement and stakeholder group is presented in Figure 35 and Figure 36.

32

Figure 35: Responses to the role of the EU statements by stakeholder group

33

Figure 36: Responses to the role of the EU statements by stakeholder group.

34