chapter 2 - 10 years of being sassi (2014)

TEN YEARS OF BEING SASSIA dOcumENTATION OF ThE SuSTAINABlE SEAFOOd mOvEmENT IN SOuTh AFRIcA

| Ten years of being SASSI A documentation of the sustainable seafood movement in South Africa | page 25

This section provides a brief overview of research in support of, motivated by, or arising from the so-called ‘sustainable seafood movement’ in South Africa, of which SASSI is an integral component. An overview of the comprehensive research, undertaken by SASSI

to better understand their target audience and their behaviour, is also provided. Growing the knowledge: Research on sustainable seafood in South Africa

2.1 Introduction With the development and growth of the global ‘sustainable seafood movement’ (Jacquet and Pauly 2007; Parkes et al. 2010) and its two main thrusts, namely sustainable seafood initiatives as well as fishery certification and eco-labelling schemes, came the concomitant need for a better understanding of how seafood markets and trade influence the sustainability of fisheries. This was no different in South Africa at the dawn of its sustainable seafood movement.

South Africa has a long history of excellence in traditional fisheries research and management, with world leaders in the fields of fisheries stock assessments, population modelling, the implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, and Marine Protected Areas. However, with the first Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification of the South African hake trawl fishery in 2004, and the initiation of SASSI in 2004, it was apparent that there was no comprehensive information available about the preferences of local seafood consumers, the products available to them, or the markets that supplied them. This was shown by the initial retailer surveys carried out in KZN in 2002, followed by similar surveys early in 2005 of restaurants and retailers in the Cape Town Metro. Similar to the findings in the Durban Metro, 80% of respondents were not aware of the Marine Living Resource Act legislation, 20% admitted to purchasing fish from recreational anglers, and several no-sale species were offered for sale, including white musselcracker, white steenbras, and Cape stumpnose.

This again confirmed that more comprehensive research was necessary and crucial to the success of initiatives such as SASSI and the MSC: both rely on an in-depth understanding of the seafood chain-of-custody to identify critical points of concern or leverage, and the provision of up-to-date, defendable information on each and every seafood product available to the consumer. Therefore, a number of strategic surveys and studies were carried out over the past decade, in many cases made possible by the partnerships described in the previous section, including TRAFFIC, MSC, SANBI, EWT, and various academic institutions.

2.1.1 Research for sustainability ratings and seafood listing

The most important research component relating to SASSI and the MSC is that of determining the relative sustainability of a fishery or fish species. Although there may be superficial similarities between the SASSI colour-coded seafood list and the MSC eco-label, it is important to recognise the differences between these two tools, as this may lead to confusion among consumers. The most important single difference is that the SASSI listing is primarily a consumer awareness programme based on desktop research that relies entirely on existing and available data for a specific seafood species. On the other hand, the MSC is a globally recognised eco-label. The process of obtaining the MSC certification is much more meticulous and entails the assessment of a fishery against the MSC standard by third-party accredited assessors. This is a process that may take months, sometimes years, and involves a wide range of stakeholders and experts who have to be satisfied that the fishery achieves the required scores in all sustainability criteria (see www.msc.org for more on the certification process). In addition, the MSC eco-label on a seafood product guarantees its full traceability back to the fishery, an assurance that cannot be given by SASSI. While a SASSI listing can therefore provide consumers with general information about the sustainability of products from a particular fishery, it does not provide any assurance that the actual product originates from that fishery. Consequently, it is more of a general recommendation in the absence of an audited eco-label, which encourages consumers to ask more questions about the identity and source of the seafood on offer.

SEcTION 2 Jaco Barendse

The SASSI listing process itself has also evolved from the very first list in 2005 to the latest updates. This reflects a growing interest in the list and its potential impacts on seafood trade and fisheries by an ever broadening suite of stakeholders. The first SASSI list included only local species, and very few aquaculture ones. It relied entirely on the inputs of a few specialist scientists, based on available research on species stock status (e.g. the linefish stock status reports) from available research by government and other authorities, general information about species biology, and ecosystem impacts of the fishing method employed. Internationally, with seafood lists available in over 19 countries, there was growing concern and criticism about the differential definitions of sustainability used by various campaigns that could conceivably result in the same species being listed differently on two separate lists (Roheim 2009; Jacquet et al. 2010). The increasing pressure for creating a more transparent and harmonised approach to sustainable seafood lists was complicated by the extensive international trade of seafood species. It was clear that a list with local species only was not enough. This prompted the development of a consistent methodology for making seafood recommendations by a number of NGOs, including the Seafood Choices Alliance, Greenpeace, the North Sea Foundation, and WWF International. Once finalised, this methodology was adopted by WWF South Africa for the SASSI listing in 2010; importantly, the process in South Africa came to include a stakeholder participation component where draft assessments are made available for a comment period, before being given the thumbs-up (or down) by an external review panel.

The listing process has thus greatly improved over time, changing from a local in-house to internationally recognised process, in keeping with the ever increasing attention that such lists attract from consumers and other seafood stakeholders. The lists now include both wild-caught and farmed species of local and imported origins. Moreover, the list illustrates the complimentary role that seafood awareness campaigns can play in promoting the more thorough eco-labelling process, by automatically placing all MSC certified species on the Green list. This can act as an awareness tool for consumers about the eco-label, but also an incentive to fisheries to try and achieve the highest recognition for seafood sustainability.

2.1.2 Technical and academic research and reports on local sustainable seafood

The mSC

Given that the process for MSC certification of the hake trawl fishery was initiated as early as 2002 before being certified in 2004, it is not surprising that many of the available technical reports relate to this fishery and its road to certification, and subsequent re-certification in 2010. These include highly detailed reports about the hake certification (D, Table 1) with insights into the rationale for certification, the problems and challenges faced, the process, costs and benefits. The MSC itself also included the hake trawl as one of 32 case studies in its 2009 report titled ‘NET BENEFITS: The first 10 years of MSC certified sustainable fisheries’ (E, Table 1). It highlighted the contribution of the certification to raising awareness among consumers and the industry about important marine conservation issues, such as the need for Marine Protected Areas, bycatch management, and successes relating to the reduction of seabird mortalities. Other more recent work relating to hake, but this time looking at other sectors such as hake longline, and including the hake industry in neighbouring Namibia, looked at their potential for MSC certification after undergoing pre-assessments (A, K, Table 1).

Following the establishment of a regional office in July 2008, the MSC commissioned a variety of research other than on hake. One area that some commentators feel has been ‘neglected’ by the MSC globally is that of small-scale fisheries (Jacquet and Pauly 2008). To address this knowledge gap in South Africa, a study was carried out by the Environmental Evaluation Unit (UCT) in 2010 for the MSC Southern Africa Programme titled ‘Small-scale fisheries in South Africa and their potential to obtain Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification’ (I, Table 1). The report evaluated six potential small-scale or artisanal fishery ‘units’ (snoek and yellowtail hand line, southern Cape rock oysters, octopus pot fishery, east coast rock lobster on the wild coast, and inshore west coast rock lobster) for possible certification. Its main conclusions were that the impending finalisation of the national small-scale fisheries policy coupled with data deficiency held implications for the possible


certification of many of these fisheries, and that social criteria needed to be included in any attempt to do so, e.g. through including other certification schemes such as Fair Trade. The MSC Standard and Action Plan Template have nevertheless still proven useful in mapping out Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs). This process is supported by the MSC’s recently released benchmarking and tracking tool for FIPs. A number of fisheries in the region are now engaged in formal FIPs based on the MSC Standard. These include Kenyan rock lobster, Tanzanian and Madagascar octopus, and Mozambique deep-water shrimp.

Another study commissioned by the MSC in 2009 and titled ‘Identifying opportunities for MSC products in the South African retail and food service sectors’ (G, Table1) aimed to better understand local retail markets and their readiness for the eco-label. It specifically looked at available seafood products and assessed the feasibility and potential cost differential for these to be substituted by MSC-labelled equivalent products. The study identified some products as having good potential to be replaced by MSC-labelled products, most notably chilled and canned herring and mackerel, and canned sardines and salmon. One of the barriers identified at the time was a shortage of local suppliers with the Chain-of-Custody certification, and an apparent reluctance by Chain of Custody (CoC) holders to expand their product scope and promote the MSC brand. Since then a number of suppliers have undergone CoC audits and species now available in South Africa include hake, mussels, mackerel, herring, sardines, and salmon.

At present, 325 fisheries are engaged in the MSC program, with 221 certified and 104 under full assessment. It is also interesting to note that, with the growth of the MSC programme internationally in terms of number of fisheries certified and number of MSC labelled consumer-facing products, so did the scientific debate around and scrutiny of the eco-label (for example, see Jacquet and Pauly 2008 and Jacquet et al. 2010). The South African hake trawl fishery did not escape this sometimes undue attention, with several papers expressing fairly negative criticism. A number of reports and peer-reviewed papers (Ponte 2008, 2012, and C, Table 1) accused the MSC, inter alia, of putting commercial interests above those of small-scale fisheries and coastal communities, and of being focussed on improving the market rather than the fishery. The MSC responded formally on many of these claims. Furthermore, numerous researchers have also published works (e.g. Gutierrez et al. 2012) in support of the successes of the MSC programme and in opposition to these criticisms, including a recent paper (Field et al. 2013) dealing with the contribution of the MSC (and SASSI) to the promotion of responsible fishing practices in the South African hake trawl sector, including a significant reduction in seabird incidental mortality (Maree et al. 2014), increased ecosystem research, and raised public awareness around seafood sustainability. Such debates, provided that they are factual and rational, can only contribute to the robustness of sustainability initiatives such as the MSC. Suffice to say that, after almost a decade of being certified, and in the light of considerable uncertainty with regards to the world economic climate, markets, and local management capacity, it is clear that the certification of the hake trawl has contributed to stability and sustainability of this fishery. It undoubtedly would have been much worse off without it. In fact, two near-complete independent studies (O, P, Table 1) looking at markets for South African hake showed the importance of maintaining the MSC certificate and associated economic benefits. South African hake outperformed other similar, non-certified hake fisheries in the market place, through a combination of greater market diversification, higher levels of value-addition and greater stability in markets. This has resulted in high levels of re-investment in the fishery, creating employment and job security. Analysis indicated that, without certification, the Net Present Value (NPV) of the fishery would decrease by about 35% over a five-year period, with a potential loss of up to 13 600 jobs. This clearly underlines the added value MSC certification has brought to the fishery.

SASSI

Apart from the research toward the seafood listings, one of the first research priorities identified by SASSI was to better understand the trade dynamics of the group of species of most conservation concern, namely the linefish. The term linefish is uniquely applied in South Africa to a diverse suite of species that are traditionally caught by means of a hook-and-line and include almost all seabreams, other reef-dwelling species such as rockcods, snappers, but also migratory and nomadic species such

as snoek, yellowtail, geelbek and kob. Importantly, although designated as linefish, the method of capture is not important in assigning this term. The first specialist study commissioned for SASSI was on linefish trade dynamics (B, Table 1), carried out by TRAFFIC in July 2006. Conducted over a six-month period, this study aimed to determine the distribution, marketing, and sale of linefish, and its derived products. Specifically, it sought to determine how local linefish was marketed and traded throughout the value chain, understand the flow of linefish from buyers (who buy from fishers) through to restaurants and retailers; examine trade of selected imported species, assess compliance levels with existing regulations; and understand the use of market names for some linefish species. Data were collected for four coastal regions namely Cape West Coast, Southern Cape, Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, using a combination of interviews, questionnaires, and catch and trade data. The results presented as a region-by-region breakdown of trade dynamics, highlighting a complex flow of products between regions and metropolitan areas, with the Cape Town area being the main source of linefish restaurants, and retailers in inland Gauteng being major recipients, often via other coastal towns. At virtually all sites, there was evidence of linefish from non-commercial sources entering the formal trade. Other notable findings were continued demand for and possible sales of the specially protected species seventy-four in KZN, and the common practice of misnaming species (sometimes not even linefish), e.g. angelfish as white steenbras. It also found considerable trade from Mozambique in linefish, as well as other seafood such as crabs. In general, compliance inspections ranged from fairly frequently (twice a year) in Cape Town and sometimes more regularly at other landing sites, to probably non-existent in Gauteng.

As a result of this study, and further developments in the arena of seafood fraud and mislabelling (see Box 1: ‘SeafoodGate’), the next phase of research focussed on various aspects of seafood naming (F, Table 1). The ‘Guideline document for naming of seafood products in South Africa, including proposed draft list of seafood names’ was a discussion document that served to provide a starting point for development of a standardised approach to assigning market names to seafood species. Drawing on examples from other countries, it proposed a step-by-step approach towards developing a naming protocol and included a draft list of trade names. What were clear from these studies were the limitations of existing legislation in South Africa to help address the matters of misnaming and traceability. Therefore, a specialist study, ‘Desktop study: Identification and traceability of South African seafood’, was commissioned and completed in December 2009 (H, Table 1) at a time when traceability was becoming an important agenda item in discussions relating to trade within the SADC region and especially with the EU. In terms of the latter, The European Commission’s Regulation (EC) 1005/2008: ‘Establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing’ was to take effect on 01 January 2010, with considerable implications for trade, including more stringent traceability and labelling criteria. At a domestic level, the South African Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 became law on 29 April 2009, which recognised and consolidated consumer rights, including placing certain obligations on suppliers of goods or services and the way in which businesses relate with consumers and market their products and services. These developments could be viewed as compelling triggers for implementing traceability in fisheries supply chains. The report provided a fairly comprehensive and technical breakdown of traceability standards and requirements, including descriptions of the South African regulatory framework, specifications and standards relating to seafood products, and frameworks for traceability key points in the fishery supply chain. The main finding of the study was that the identification and traceability of South African seafood was complex due to the nature of the fisheries environment and sector, and the extent of local, national and international political and personal interests. It further suggested that there was great opportunity for corruption, vested interests were known, reported and seemingly accepted, and there could be resistance to tighter controls. Finally, it found that requirements for traceability were not adequately specified in regulations, standards, specifications and policies, or addressed in industry training programmes, and the incorporation of electronic traceability systems and related data norms and standards seemed unlikely at the time.


Box 1: ‘SeafoodGate’

FoCuS on SeAFood mISlAbellIng And FrAud In SouTh AFrICA

In the late 2000s, there were ever-growing numbers of international researchers reporting on incidents of seafood fraud (e.g. Jacquet and Pauly 2008) in the USA, Europe and elsewhere, where species were deliberately misnamed and sold to the public, often under false pretences. The implications of this were manifold, but included the sale of endangered species to unsuspecting consumers, the undermining of sustainable seafood recommendations by sustainable seafood campaigns, and even health risks. In 2009 a local version of ‘SeafoodGate’ shocked the public when a programme produced by Liz Fish was screened on the investigative journalism programme Carte Blanche, on 25 April. It showed the results of a study by WWF in collaboration with Dr Sophie von der Heyden at the Evolutionary Genomics Group of the Stellenbosch University (von der Heyden et al. 2010. ‘Misleading the masses: detection of mislabelled and substituted frozen fish products in South Africa’). The paper found that 50% of 178 samples from Cape Town restaurants and fish traders were mislabelled in some way; most concerning was the detection of the river snapper, a no-sale species. It also highlighted regular mislabelling of some of South Africa’s most popular fish, such as kob and kingklip. Also at Stellenbosch University, but at the Department of Food Science, Donna-Mareè Cawthorn was busy with her doctoral studies on the molecular identification of fish species on the South African market, and included the first inclusion of the Sustainable Seafood Movement and SASSI in an academic thesis in South Africa. Her dissertation, completed in 2011, included surveying seafood retailers and restaurants in three coastal provinces and one inland, and provided detailed analysis of seafood availability, and its position on the SASSI list. It showed a high incidence of fish of conservation concern being offered for sale, and identified inadequate labelling and ignorance by vendors as major issues. Donna’s thesis further included a chapter (later published as Cawthorn et al. 2012. ‘DNA barcoding reveals a high incidence of fish species misrepresentation and substitution on the South African market’) which found that overall, 10 of 108 (9%) samples from wholesalers and 43 of 140 (31%) from retailers were identified as different species to the ones indicated at the point of sale. It concluded that while many of the incidents were unintentional, the greatest proportion represented ‘serious and seemingly deliberate acts of fraud for the sake of increased profits’. All the above studies agreed that the level of mislabelling found showed inadequate regulation and seafood labelling standards in South Africa. In the immediate aftermath of the exposés, several retailers adopted DNA testing as part of their assurance for traceability. The net result of these studies was a greater awareness in the industry about the incidence and risks associated with seafood fraud, and paved the way for inclusive dialogues between NGOs, regulators and the seafood industry. As a first step, a symposium co-hosted by the Marine Stewardship Council and WWF South Africa was held in Cape Town on 4 November 2012, dealing with the topic of misnaming and traceability, and with participants invited from all sectors. Subsequent to the symposium, a number of roundtables were held and a working group established comprising of representatives from the key regulatory bodies and stakeholders from throughout the seafood supply chain. A submission was then approved by the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) which has enabled the group to commence with the development of a voluntary list of acceptable market names for all species. This process may take up to two years.

The next detailed report focussed on another problematic seafood group, namely prawns (J, Table 1). Although the environmental concerns do not relate to prawn stocks themselves but rather the impacts caused by capturing or farming this popular seafood, these are generally unknown to consumers. A better understanding of the prawn species and their origins available in the South African market was needed in order to provide better sustainability advice. The study examined a combination of on-shelf products, feedback from selected traders, and an examination of major foreign suppliers of prawns and shrimp to the local market. A list of prawns and langoustines available in South Africa was compiled, and grouped according to areas and countries of origin, species, and production methods. Based on the relative importance (in terms of volume), some 10 species were identified on which SASSI sustainability assessments would be carried out. The market was found to be dominated by farmed prawns from Asia, especially from India and China, while most wild-caught prawns originate from Mozambique. Based on the definitions of sustainability in prawn

fishing and farming at the time, there were limited sustainable options available, such as deep-water shrimps and langoustines from MSC-certified fisheries or prawn farms that apply some form of environmental best practice (e.g. Madagascar, or certified by third-party certification bodies). This was prior to the finalising and implementation of a globally accepted set of aquaculture standards and so there were very few sustainable prawn options for South Africa’s mainly price-driven ‘eat as much as you can’ prawn market.

The final, most comprehensive and possibly most ambitious study to date on the South African seafood markets was finalised in June 2012, after the research efforts of several people in several provinces (L, Table 1). This report aimed to establish a number of things, especially (1) identifying the different species that occur on the South African market, their origins and their relative importance on the market, as well as the main stakeholders engaged in the trading of these species; (2) assessing the impact that SASSI has in influencing seafood purchasing decisions of seafood vendors; and (3) re-assessing the extent of illegal trade in the South African seafood industry and comparing the current situation to the preliminary surveys conducted in 2002 and 2005. The main findings are shown in Box 2.

Box 2: Highlights from ‘The South African Seafood Market’ report by TRAFFIC

CATCheS, ConSumpTIon, ImporTS, And exporTS

Catch: In 2010, a total of 624,078 t of fish was caught by all South African fisheries and 1,991 t produced by marine aquaculture. Small pelagic species collectively represented the greatest volume of fish, with anchovy and sardine the first and second, followed by Cape hakes as the third highest volume.

Consumption: The total estimated seafood consumption in SA in 2010 was 263,337 t. This was dominated by sardines and hake, together accounting for over 80% of estimated seafood consumption in that year. Of this, about 69% of seafood volume consumed in SA was from local fisheries while the balance was made up of imported seafood. However, when sardines are excluded, the local vs. imported comparison becomes quite different, with almost 60% of seafood consumed imported and the rest caught locally.

exports: In 2010, SA exported ±121,300 t of live, fresh, and frozen seafood (fish, crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates) and ±7,685 t of prepared and preserved seafood. Of the top 10 importing countries in 2010, Spain was the biggest importer (more than 25%) of SA seafood, followed by Italy (> 15%). Cameroon, Angola and Fiji were also important trade partners, collectively importing 30% of seafood from SA.

Imports: In 2010, SA imported ±38,767 t of live, fresh, and frozen, and ±56,055 t of prepared and preserved seafood. Half of all imports by volume into SA of live, fresh and frozen seafood were from Namibia and New Zealand (26% and 24% respectively). China, India, Spain, and Argentina were also important trade partners together represented 32% of imports.

Squid: For 2000 - 2010, SA imported on average 10,300 t of squid per year, from Taiwan, Spain, China, Peru, and the Falklands. Squid imports have remained fairly stable over the last decade.

prawns: For 2000 – 2010, an annual average of 4,700 t of frozen, 37 t fresh, and 1,900 t of preserved prawns were imported by SA. Imports of frozen prawns have increased more than three-fold from 2004 to 2010. India was the main source for imported prawns to SA, followed by Mozambique, and Thailand.

Canned tuna: Imports of canned tuna to SA have increased from approximately 5,500 t in 2000 to 12,300 t in 2010, a growth of more than 200%. While both Thailand and the Philippines were the major sources in the 2000 - 2005, imports from the Philippines have steadily diminished since 2006, and in 2008 - 2010 almost all canned tuna imported into SA was from Thailand.


SeAFood mArKeT TrendS

Seafood availability: Feedback from restaurants and fish outlets indicated that most vendors were experiencing a decreased availability of seafood, although a small number noted increased supply of seafood with specific mention of hake. The latter trend appears to be due to the dramatic decrease of the hake export market as a result of the global economic downturn, especially in the Eurozone.

Seafood demand: Demand for seafood in general appeared to be stable or increasing for the majority of seafood vendors while only a small number reported a decline in demand.

ComplIAnCe And IllegAl SeAFood TrAde

mlrA knowledge: Knowledge of the laws applicable to seafood trade in South Africa appeared to be low, although the relatively better knowledge surrounding ‘no-sale’ species indicates some knowledge of the provisions of the MLRA, as well as the reason for these provisions being in place.

opportunities to purchase seafood illegally: It was concerning that 62% of respondents in all regions surveyed were either offered seafood by recreational fishers or were in a position to purchase ‘no-sale’ species. Comparisons with previous surveys reveals a significant change for the better in Durban, but a concerning change for the worse in Cape Town.

Compliance inspections: Inspections levels for seafood outlets were poor. Forty-six percent of respondents had never been inspected by any Compliance Officials, with Gauteng experiencing the lowest percentage of inspections – 3%, and Cape Town Metro the highest, followed by Durban.

SASSI Knowledge And ImpACTS

SASSI awareness: Almost 75%of all respondents were aware of SASSI, with Cape Town and the Southern Cape being the regions of greatest awareness, and Gauteng and the Eastern Cape the lowest.

SASSI impacts on seafood trade: Encouragingly, for respondents who were aware of SASSI, more than 70% felt that it has had an overall positive impact on seafood trade.

SASSI tools: Fifty-five percent of respondents had used some SASSI tools when making a seafood choice while 45% had not. The SASSI pocket card was the most frequently used tool, followed by SASSI posters and the website. There was no reported use of the mobisite, although it could be that respondents were not clear on the difference between the mobisite and the SASSI website. Furthermore, these tools are primarily aimed at consumers, not traders.

SASSI impacts on fishing industry: Twenty-two percent of respondents were of the opinion that SASSI has had a positive impact on the fishing industry, with a number of these specifically saying that more consumer awareness on sustainability puts more pressure on the fishing industry to meet sustainability demands.

The data collected during the research for the seafood market study resulted in a number of other products based on secondary analysis. The report ‘An analysis of supply chains in the South African seafood market’ (M, Table 1) took a more in-depth look at different types of seafood suppliers, and how these trade with the key seafood commodities. In the report, some five different vendor categories were identified: restaurants, retailers, fish shops, hotel and catering, and wholesalers and distributors. Some of the key findings of the report were that seafood supply in South Africa is characterised by a relatively small (<10) group of companies, largely based in Cape Town, that predominantly or only supply seafood to wholesalers and distributors around the country. These companies tend not to also supply seafood to the other vendor categories. Some of the larger Western Cape companies do not supply wholesalers and distributors but rather focus on restaurants and fish shops, accordingly achieving a fairly good spread of supply across the various vendor categories.

Smaller suppliers, especially those based in KZN and Gauteng, tended to supply seafood to all vendor categories, except other wholesalers and distributors. Retailers appeared to be supplied by a diverse group of companies, with very few apparently being supplied directly by the large Cape Town-based seafood suppliers.

Some of the results of the above reports were also presented at, and included in the report from, the Proceedings of the 4th Linefish Symposium (N, Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of unpublished technical or research reports in chronological order applicable to SASSI or the MSC in South Africa.

No. Date Title Produced for

A Dec 2005 Assessing the role and impact of eco-labelling in the three BCLME Countries1

BCLME Programme

B July 2006 Chain of custody dynamics within the South African linefish sector2

WWF-SA

C Aug 2006 Eco-labels and fish trade: Marine Stewardship Council certification and the SA hake industry3

Trade Law Centre for Southern Africa

D Nov 2008 Overview and Analysis of the Marine Stewardship Council Certification of the South African Hake‐Trawl Fishery4

UNEP / ISS

E Sep 2009 South Africa Hake Trawl. In: NET BENEFITS: The first 10 years of MSC certified sustainable fisheries5

MSC

F Oct 2009 Guideline document for naming of seafood products in South Africa, including proposed draft list of seafood names6

WWF-SA

G Dec 2009 Identifying opportunities for MSC products in the South African retail and food service sectors6

MSC

H Dec 2009 Desktop study: Identification and traceability of South African seafood7

WWF-SA

I Sep 2010 Small-scale fisheries in South Africa and their potential to obtain Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification8

MSC

J Nov 2010 An evaluation of the species, origins, and production methods of prawns, shrimps and langoustines available on the South African market, with special reference to sustainability6

WWF-SA

K May 2011 The Namibian and South African hake trade2 TRAFFIC

L Jun 2012 The South African seafood market9 WWF-SA

M Sep 2012 An analysis of supply chains in the South African seafood market10

WWF-SA

N Dec 2013 Trade dynamics of South African linefish. In: A decade after the emergency: The proceedings of the 4th Linefish Symposium11

WWF-SA


O In prep A high level economic impact assessment of the benefits to the domestic economy resulting from the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) continued certification of the South African hake trawl fishery12

MSC

P In prep An analysis of the economic benefits of MSC certification for the South African hake fishery13

MSC

Authors 1 = Eviro-Fish Africa, Feike, UCT, and others; 2 = Markus Bürgener (TRAFFIC); 3 = Stefano Ponte; 4 = Dave Japp; 5= MSC; 6 = Jaco Barendse; 7 = Gwynne Foster; 8 = EEU, University of Cape Town; 9 = Written by Markus Bürgener & Jaco Barendse, with research by Bernice Mclean, Donna Cawthorn & Nicola Okes; 10 = Written by Markus Bürgener, with research by Jaco Barendse, Bernice Mclean, Donna Cawthorn & Nicola Okes; 11 = John Duncan & Markus Bürgener; 12 = Bureau for Economic Research (BER), University of Stellenbosch; 13 = OLRAC-SPS

2.1.3 Consumer research

Janine Basson

In order to achieve the second and third objectives of SASSI, namely to create awareness of marine conservation issues and to ultimately shift consumer demand from over-exploited species to more sustainable options, it was necessary to better understand the intended audience. Thus, a significant amount of research was invested to clearly define SASSI’s target audience. This section provides a broad overview of this research.

Consumer surveys: an overview

At the outset of the programme, consumer surveys were conducted by SASSI at high profile food shows in the Western Cape area. Surveys undertaken during this time showed that general consumer awareness of SASSI had increased from 11% to 54% (Figure 4). Priority food shows were chosen for SASSI to have a presence at and the time spent manning a stand at the food show was concurrently used to interview consumers. The food shows of suitable priority included the Knysna Oyster Festival (Knysna), the Good Food and Wine Show (Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg), Taste of the Cape (Cape Town) and the Natural and Organic Show (Cape Town and Johannesburg), amongst others.

Figure 4: Percentage awareness of WWF-SASSI recorded at South African food shows from 2006 to 2009. Respondents answered ‘yes’ if they had heard of SASSI previously or ‘no’ they had not.

However, it soon became apparent that these results did not give a true reflection of the awareness of SASSI amongst South Africans. Firstly, consumers attending these types of events are assumed to be more aware of new initiatives, developments and movements within the food industry and therefore more likely to have heard about SASSI by way of their lifestyle. Secondly, these surveys were conducted on an ad hoc basis, with no consistency with regard to locations, and did not give a comprehensive view of the programme’s impact at a national scale. Lastly, the surveys were conducted in-house, which was continuously dependent on the programme’s human resources at the time and thus often resulted in small sample sizes.

In order to gain a more representative and objective understanding of the awareness and impact of SASSI, the first nationwide consumer survey was undertaken in 2010 using an independent market research agency. The main objectives of this survey were to define SASSI’s target audience and their awareness of the programme, to understand their purchasing behaviour and to understand whether SASSI had any influence on their ultimate seafood choices. It was through this research that SASSI’s target audience was first defined as consisting of those consumers who buy fresh seafood once a month or more often, or visit a seafood restaurant once a month or more often. Together, these consumers account for 28% of metropolitan South Africa.

It was this body of research that revealed that SASSI had reached only 5% of its target market (and 8% of the non-target market), which provided confirmation that the programme’s approach was too untargeted. The survey also indicated that only a small percentage (19%) of the target audience (106 people in total) had made use of the consumer tools and that those who had used the tools had not always changed their behaviour as a result.

These initial findings constituted the foundation upon which the programme’s strategy was significantly refined. Follow up research included evaluating the awareness and ultimate effectiveness of the consumer tools, tracking behavioural and attitudinal shifts with respect to the concept of ‘sustainable seafood’ and, more specifically, the level of awareness of the SASSI campaign amongst the target audience, as well as their media consumption.

Following a broad-based ‘monitoring and evaluation’ framework, the consumer survey was refined and repeated in 2012 and again in 2014. This research, in line with the programme’s Theory of Change, focussed very specifically on the SASSI target audience, further interrogating the attitudes towards sustainable seafood and behaviour with regard to buying seafood. The results in 2012 showed that 24% of SASSI’s target market was aware of SASSI’s core conservation message, which increased to 40% in 2014 (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Percentage awareness of WWF-SASSI recorded within South African metropoles (Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg) from research conducted in 2010, 2012 and 2014.


Based on this research, which also interrogated the media consumption patterns of the SASSI target audience, their preference for receiving this kind of information, and how best to package it, new tools were developed. Additions included recipe booklets (intended to assist consumers in cooking lesser known Green-listed sustainable seafood and move them away from well-known Orange- and Red-listed options), a mobisite (a smart-phone enabled mechanism by which to view the website), smart phone applications (for the three most popular operating systems in South Africa – Blackberry, iOs and Android) and selected social media platforms (specifically Facebook, Twitter and YouTube).

Most importantly, the research confirmed that the programme is indeed working at the key leverage points in the seafood supply chain e.g. Pick n Pay was shown to be the leading retailer where the SASSI target audience purchases their seafood (canned, frozen and fresh) and Ocean Basket was shown to be the leader amongst franchised sit-down restaurants for seafood. Both of these corporates are partnered with SASSI through their Retailer/Supplier Participation Scheme and have made public-facing, time-bound commitments to seafood sustainability as part of this partnership. This is an especially important finding as the research also indicated that consumers have inherent faith in retailers and their good intentions towards seafood sustainability, particularly those in partnership with WWF-SASSI. See Appendix 1 for a summary of the consumer research to date.

The awareness and effectiveness of the SASSI tools

The initial research conducted in 2010 revealed that the knowledge and subsequent use of the various tools provided by SASSI to assist in making a sustainable seafood choice was quite low. The programme therefore invested in further specific independent research to understand the effectiveness of the tools (specifically the FishMS, website, mobisite and poster). Questions asked by this research included: what is working i.e. how easy are the tools to understand and use; what is not working and why not; and how the tools can be improved?

The methodology employed included online surveys, which had a nationwide reach and specifically targeted those consumers who had used the SASSI tools, and focus groups, which constituted SASSI user groups (i.e. consumers who had heard of and used the SASSI tools) and non-user groups (i.e. consumers that were not familiar with SASSI and the SASSI tools) in both Cape Town and Johannesburg respectively.

Results showed that, while the awareness of the tools was low, respondents indicated that each tool had its place. Thus, the programme realised it was not the tools themselves that needed to be adjusted but the lack of awareness around the tools that needed to be addressed.

The programme responded to these results by specifically focussing on raising awareness of the SASSI tools amongst their target audience through annual SASSI-specific activations. The subsequent surveys in 2012 and 2014 revealed that the awareness of the SASSI tools has increased as a result of these efforts, from 19% in 2010 to 48% in 2014 (Figure 6), with 90% of the 2014 respondents indicating that the SASSI tools have influenced their decision-making (compared to 2010, where respondents stated that they didn’t always change their ultimate seafood choice based on their usage of the tools).

Figure 6: Percentage awareness of WWF-SASSI tools recorded within South African metropoles (Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg) from research conducted in 2010, 2012 and 2014.

SASSI’s ‘Seafood Consumer development’ strategy

As the programme’s strategy developed further, it became clear that the general awareness message needed to be developed into a strong call for responsible purchase and consumption of seafood if long-term behaviour change in the seafood industry was to be effected. There needed to be an implicit ‘call to action’, which manifested in consumers asking the fundamental questions3 needed to make a sustainable seafood choice and acting on their convictions. The assumption was that this would result in a ‘push-pull’ effect, where industry responds to consumer demand for more responsibly sourced product and consumers in turn feel that their actions have brought about positive change.

This requires the development of the average seafood consumer, who never asks questions of their seafood and simply orders any seafood item on the menu, into a seafood champion. A so-called ‘champion consumer’ is one who drives meaningful change through the industry by only buying sustainable seafood and actively demanding that their retailer or restaurant supply more sustainable seafood options.

Assuming that the following model, conceptualised by SASSI, reflects the four key stages that consumers go through if the programme is to achieve its objectives, the strategy relies on the majority of the target market reaching at least the first stage i.e. awareness of the challenges integral to seafood sustainability:

Awareness Action Understanding the bigger picture SASSI champion consumer

Table 2 explains each of these stages in more detail.

Table 2: A summary of the four key stages of SASSI’s Seafood Consumer Development model and the associated characteristic responses of each stage.

Stage: Characterised by the following behaviour or questions:

Awareness stage – at this stage, the message of WWF-SASSI is merely on the periphery of the consumer’s consciousness.

“I know there is such a thing as a Green fish and there is also an Orange and a Red fish.”

“I think I know the significance of Green, Orange, Red – I read about it somewhere.”

“Some restaurants have been caught selling fish under a false name.”

“I will probably look out for information next time and maybe ask if it is Green.”

“I may have second thoughts about buying an Orange fish.”

“It is important to consider the environment when purchasing fish.”

3Consumers are encouraged to always ask three simple questions of their seafood: What is it called? Where is it from? How was it caught or farmed? Research has shown that positive change is driven through the seafood supply chain by consumers asking questions.


Action stage – this stage shows a change in behaviour but, unless reinforced, they may slip back to the ‘awareness’ stage.

Specifically asking about the status before purchasing

Making mention of the fact that they know theirs is a Green choice

Spreading the word amongst their friends

Using the SASSI tools i.e. FishMS, SASSI pocket card etc.

Making purchase decisions based on status of seafood

Trying out Green fish to widen their choice of seafood

Understanding – in this stage, the consumer is sufficiently reinforced with growing personal conviction that their effort is valued, and will seek to understand the reasons underpinning why it is important to support sustainable seafood and responsible fisheries practises.

‘Why is a fish Green/Orange/Red?’

‘Can anything be done and who is responsible?’

‘What’s at stake for me, marine life, people in general, and the economy?’

‘What impact will my decision have on the conservation of nature, and pertinent issues of food and job security?’

‘How do issues such as illegal trade and misnaming affect our resources? ‘What is being done about these issues?’

‘What are the specific bycatch issues?’

‘Is aquaculture the answer to overfishing?’

‘How do Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) fit into the picture?’

Champion – these consumers are actively involved in spreading the word and form part of a core pressure group.

Individuals that are not only making sustainable seafood choices but also actively lobbying seafood retailers and/or fishing companies to make a change.

Note: Despite it being overly simplistic to categorise the target market into exclusive stages, the strategy uses these stages as a guide to target consumers and gauge the effectiveness of communications.

A few select consumers have moved beyond this general call-to-action to drive meaningful change within the seafood industry (refer to Section 3 for more details), demonstrating the value of this framework for the development of seafood consumers.

2.2 Conclusion

Jaco Barendse and Janine Basson

The so-called ‘sustainable seafood movement’ in South Africa has significantly contributed to knowledge creation in a hitherto neglected area, and has improved our understanding of market dynamics around not only our local fisheries products but also those that form part of the international trade. Apart from the commissioned works outlined above, it is interesting to note how the issue of sustainable seafood has become entrenched within industry media (see Box 4). Reporting on the MSC or SASSI, or findings from these programmes, has not only become a regular occurrence in publications such as Fishing Industry News, but also those aimed at the seafood trade and hospitality industries; for example, articles about seafood naming and fraud in the monthly publications Food Review and Occupational Risk. The increasing presence and influence of food bloggers has also become more evident as both online and print reviews on restaurants use SASSI as their guide for rating seafood. This all seems to indicate a mainstreaming of sustainability as an issue within the seafood value chain.

Additionally, it may be expected that SASSI and the MSC increasingly become topics for academic works. In 2009, Suze van der Horst from the University of Amsterdam examined the sustainability of the seafood business component of the South African foodservice company, Caterplus, as part of her studies in economics. From her findings she recommended that engagement with both consumer awareness campaigns such as SASSI, and the MSC would be important future investments by the company. SASSI was also mentioned in a paper dealing with investments into sustainability by the retailer Woolworths (Dos Santos 2011) as part of their ‘Good Business Journey’. Most recently, Dave Landey (2013) completed his thesis titled ‘SASSI and the MSC: How effective have they been with reaching consumers in Cape Town and raising their awareness?’ Using surveys at selected supermarkets, Dave tested consumers’ ability to recognise the MSC eco-label and SASSI logo, and how these may influence their seafood choices. He found that SASSI enjoyed higher recognition than the MSC (nearly 50% vs. 10% of respondents). However, he did not find strong evidence for changes in purchasing behaviour toward more sustainable choices. Although he did not find a correlation between awareness and operational partnerships between SASSI with certain retailer chains, the fact that many people choose to purchase their seafood at supermarkets indicates that this remains an important ‘pressure point’ for awareness raising and education.

Research works such as those mentioned above and those related to seafood fraud (Box 1) provide important additional and independent ways of evaluating the progress and relative impacts of the sustainable seafood movement. It can be expected that more and more academic and scholarly research will start to examine various aspects relating to sustainable seafood in South Africa (and Africa) and this should be encouraged. Furthermore, independent market research commissioned by the programme has considerably assisted in better understanding, not only of which consumers the programme needs to communicate with in order to bring about its strategic objectives, but also how SASSI can improve its engagement strategy to provide consumers with more efficient and meaningful pathways via which to act. This research has further assisted SASSI to identify key levers and intervention points in the seafood supply chain and thus guided the engagement strategy for partnering with suppliers and businesses that operate in the seafood sector.

What is important to note here is that research of this nature can provide an important foundation on which to establish a structure of ‘checks and balances’, for conservationists, managers, and industry alike. This kind of ‘monitoring and evaluation feedback loop’ will ultimately serve to improve the overall framework for the management and sustainable utilisation of our collective marine resources through highlighting where strategies are working and for conceptualising new tactics for those areas where strategies are not producing the desired results.


Box 4. Bibliography relating to SASSI and the MSC in South African context

Academic and scholarly research

Basson, J. (2011). Not all seafood is equal. South African Journal of Science, 107: 08-10.

Cawthorn, D-M. (2011). Establishment of a genetic database and molecular methods for the identification of fish species available on the South African market. Doctoral Thesis, Stellenbosch University. 233pp.

Cawthorn, D-M., Steinman, H.A., et al. (2011). Comparative study of different methods for the extraction of DNA from fish species commercially available in South Africa. Food Control, 22: 231-244.

Cawthorn, D-M., Steinman, H.A., et al. (2011). Evaluating the availability of fish species on the South African market and the factors undermining sustainability and consumer choice. Food Control, 22: 1748-1759.

Cawthorn, D-M., Steinman, H.A., et al. (2012). Evaluation of the 16S and 12S rRNA genes as universal markers for the identification of fish species. Gene, 491: 40-48.

Cawthorn, D-M., Steinman, H.A., and Witthuhn, R.C. (2012). DNA barcoding reveals a high incidence of fish species misrepresentation and substitution on the South African market. Food Research International, 46: 30-40.

Crosoer, D., van Sittert. L., Ponte, S. (2006). The integration of South African fisheries into the global economy: Past, present and future. Marine Policy, 30: 18-29.

Dos Santos, M.A.O. (2011). Minimizing the business impact on the natural environment: A case study of Woolworths South Africa. European Business Review, 23: 384 – 391.

Field, J. G., Attwood, C. G., et al. (2013). Cooperation between scientists, NGOs and industry in support of sustainable fisheries: the South African hake Merluccius spp. trawl fishery experience. Journal of Fish Biology, 83: 1019-1034.

Landley, D. 2013. SASSI and the MSC: How effective have they been with reaching consumers in Cape Town and raising their awareness? Master’s Thesis, MA-RE Institute, University of Cape Town. 72pp.

Maree, B.A., Wanless, R.M., et al. (2014). Significant reductions in mortality of threatened seabirds in a South African trawl fishery. Animal Conservation, DOI: 10.1111/acv.12126

Ponte, S. (2008). Greener than thou: The political economy of fish ecolabeling and its local manifestations in South Africa. World Development, 36: 159-175.

Ponte, S. (2012). The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the making of a market for ‘sustainable fish’. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12: 300-315.

Van der Horst, S. (2009). The CATERPLUS supply chain of fish: Recommendations for a sustainable future. Academic paper. Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands (http://dare.uva.nl/document/166252)

Von der Heyden, S., Barendse, J. et al. (2010). Misleading the masses: detection of mislabelled and substituted frozen fish products in South Africa. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 176-185.

Articles in industry media

Anon (2002). Hake fishery up for MSC assessment: special report - hake fishery. Fishing Industry News 3(4): 7.

Anon (2007). Banking on fish requires better understanding for making informed choices. Fishing Industry News 8(1): 18-20.

Anon (2008). Developing world fisheries embark on journey to MSC eco-label. Fishing Industry News 8(6): 19-20.

Anon (2008). Fisheries eco-labelling: what’s all the fuss about? Fishing industry News 9(5): 14-15.

Anon (2008). Leading sustainable seafood programme expands into southern Africa. Fishing Industry News 9(3): 13.

Anon (2009). Ocean Basket signs on. Fishing Industry News 10(4): 11.

Anon (2009). WWF plans next phase for sustainable aquaculture standards. Fishing Industry News 9(6): 19.

Barendse, J. (2007). The tricky business of seafood. Restaurant Business Magazine, October Issue.

Cawthorn, D. (2010) Mapping the future of fish sustainability: meat. Food Review 37, 40-42.

Hyslop, G. (2012) Go easy on the sushi. Food Review 39, 10-12.

Ponte, S. (2006). Study highlights MSC certification of the SA hake industry. Fishing Industry News 7(4): 18-19.

Rossouw, A. (2010). Reeling in sustainable seafood regulations: legislation and compliance. Occupational Risk 1(15): 4-5.

Starke, A. 2006. Alarm Bells over SA Seafood. Hotel and Restaurant Magazine, July Issue.

chapter 2 - 10 years of being sassi (2014)

Documents