Kind of Turquoise1 Effects of Seafood Eco-Certification and Sustainable Consumption

Kind of turquoise1 Effects of seafood eco-certification and sustainable consumption

Malin Jonell

1 The title ‘Kind of Turquoise’ was inspired by the legendary jazz album ‘Kind of Blue’ by Miles Davies from 1959. In this thesis, the title refers to a greening of the blue revolution and the seafood sector at large through eco-certification and sustainable ‘blue-green’ consumption. As the thesis identifies certain limitations of current certification, the word ‘Kind’ appears appropriate and illustrative of present challenges of market-based governance of marine resources.

The cover figure depicts two potential outcomes of seafood eco-certification. Either the mechanism creates a ripple effect stimulating improved production practices of both certified and non-certified production systems as well as influence state regulation, or it is a ‘drop in the ocean’ – not leading to any significant improvements at a sectoral level.

Kind of turquoise Effects of seafood eco-certification and sustainable consumption

Malin Jonell

iii

©Malin Jonell, Stockholm University 2016

ISBN 978-91-7649-486-8

Printed in Sweden by Holmbergs, Malmö, 2016 Distributor: Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences Cover art by Sara Rutberg

iv Photo 1 (the following page) Seafood market in Vietnam and farmed tiger prawns (P. monodon). Photo: Malin Jonell ASC-labeled pangasius in grocery store. Photo: ©ASC

We need to respect the oceans and take care of them as if our lives depended on it. Because they do. Sylvia Earle

Abstract

Aquaculture and fisheries hold promise for supplying a growing world population with healthy food produced without undermining the earth’s carrying capacity. However, just as livestock production and agriculture, seafood production can have negative environmental impacts and if a continuous or even increased supply is to be guaranteed, the pressure on affected ecosystems needs to be limited. Due in part to a perceived failure of other governance mechanisms in improving the environmental performance of the sector, a large number of voluntary market based standards for farmed and wild caught seafood have been developed. Nonetheless, the knowledge base on the extent to which implementation leads to environmental improvements remains limited. Moreover, the role of consumers in driving demand for eco- labeled seafood is presently an under-researched area. This thesis aims at reducing this knowledge gap through an examination of the potential environmental effectiveness of aquaculture eco-certification and internal, psychological variables predicted to be of importance for sustainable seafood consumption. Put differently, what is the potential of eco-certification in greening the blue revolution and fuel ‘turquoise growth’, and how can consumer demand be spurred?

In Paper I, the role of eco-certification in improving the growing aquaculture sector at large was explored. Results showed that environmental effects at global scale likely will be limited due to e.g. partial coverage of species groups and environmental impacts, and a lack of focus on Asian markets and consumers. In Paper II the environmental performance of eco-certified and non-certified mangrove-integrated shrimp farms in Vietnam was compared by using Life Cycle Assessment and put in relation to conventional, more intensive farms. While there was no substantial difference between certified and non-certified farms in terms of environmental impacts, emissions of greenhouse gasses were higher for mangrove-integrated than conventional farms due to mangrove land use change. The results from Paper III demonstrated that the body of literature investigating ecological effects of seafood eco-certification is limited. ‘Spatially explicit ecosystem service information’ (ES-information) on e.g. key ecosystem services and biodiversity in a given area is suggested to have potential to improve sustainability standards. Taking guidance from the pro-environmental behavior literature, con-

vi sumers in Stockholm, Sweden were consulted on awareness of and attitudes towards eco-labeled seafood (Paper IV-V). Two variables, concern for environmental impacts and knowledge about seafood eco-labels were the best predictors for stated eco-labeled seafood purchasing. Moreover, there seemed to be a misalignment between consumers’ expectations on eco- labeled food in general and certification requirements for eco-labeled seafood.

From this set of findings, a number of improvements of current seafood eco- certification are suggested. First, include an LCA-perspective in standards to a higher degree than presently done and provide readily available ES- information in the implementation and evaluation phase of certification. Second, introduce standardized mechanisms for capturing potential environmental improvements over time. And finally, stimulate demand by targeting Asian consumers and markets as well as strengthen consumer eco-label awareness and emotional involvement.

Keywords: eco-certification, eco-labeling, seafood, aquaculture, shrimp, LCA, consumer behavior

vii Contents

List of papers ...... ix Abbreviations ...... xi Introduction ...... 12 Promises and pitfalls of current seafood production ...... 12 The rise of voluntary sustainability standards ...... 14 Linking production and consumption - the role of consumers in stimulating change ...... 17 Scope of thesis ...... 19 Theoretical framework and research gap ...... 19 Thesis aim and objectives ...... 21 Methods ...... 23 Study area ...... 23 Methodological approach ...... 24 Statistical analyses ...... 27 Reflection on interdisciplinarity ...... 29 Results and discussion ...... 31 Objective 1: Predict environmental effects of seafood eco-certification ...... 31 Objective 2: Investigate the suitability of LCA in evaluating seafood eco-certification ..... 36 Objective 3: Analyze the linkages between seafood certification and ecosystem services .. 38 Objective 4: Explore the role of consumers in transforming the seafood sector ...... 39 Objective 5: Suggest improvements of current seafood eco-certification ...... 42 Concluding remarks ...... 45 Looking ahead - Future research direction ...... 47 Svensk sammanfattning ...... 49 Thank you ...... 51 References ...... 53

viii List of papers

I. Jonell, M., Phillips, M., Rönnbäck, P., Troell, M. 2013. Eco-Certification of Farmed Seafood: Will It Make a Difference? Ambio, 42, 659–674.

II. Jonell, M., Henriksson, P.J.G. 2015. Mangrove-Shrimp Farms in Vi- etnam – Comparing Organic and Conventional Systems Using Life Cycle Assessment. Aquaculture, 447, 66-75.

III. Chaplin-Kramer, R., Jonell, M., Guerry, A., Lambin, E.F., Morgan, A.J., Pennington, D., Smith, N., Atkins Franch, J., Polasky. S. 2015. Ecosys- tem Service Information to Benefit Sustainability Standards for Commodity Supply Chains. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1355, 77–97.

IV. Jonell, M., Crona, B., Brown, K., Rönnbäck, P., Troell, S. Eco-labeled Seafood: Determinants for (Blue) Green Consumption. 2016. Sustainability. 8(9), 884.

V. Jonell, M., Crona, B., Rönnbäck, P., Troell, M. Sustainable Seafood Purchasing in Sweden - Unpacking Drivers and Barriers. Manuscript.

Contributions

I. MJ designed the study together with MP with input from PR and MT, performed the literature and standards review and wrote most of the paper.

II. MJ was responsible for the project outline with input form PH, performed fieldwork, run the LCA modeling together with PH and wrote most of the paper.

III. The original idea was conceived by RC-K and subsequently developed together with MJ and the other co-authors. The contribution of MJ was primarily the literature and standards review for the aquaculture and capture fisheries schemes, including analysis and the written part for these sections.

IV. MJ was responsible for project outline with input from BC, PR and MT, performed the fieldwork together with KB, conducted the statistical analysis with BC and wrote most of the paper.

V. MJ was responsible for project outline with input from BC, PR and MT, performed and analyzed the interviews and wrote most of the paper.

Publications outside the thesis

Troell, M., Rönnbäck, P., Jonell, M. 2013. Hållbart vattenbruk – potential och utmaningar. In: Havsbruk som håller i längden, Forskningsrådet Formas, Stockholm, 21, pp. 229-246.

Jonell, M., Rönnbäck, P. Troell. M. 2015. Miljömärkning av fisk och skaldjur - hur långt räcker det? Havsutsikt 2: 8-10.

Troell, M., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M., Henriksson, P., Primavera, J., Rönnbäck, P., Folke, C., Jonell, M. Aquaculture, In Reference Module in Life Sciences, Elsevier, 2017, ISBN 9780128096338, In press.

x Abbreviations

AIP Aquaculture Improvement Project ASC Aquaculture Stewardship Council BAP Best Aquaculture Practices B-EIA Biodiversity Environmental Impact Assessment ES-information Spatially explicit ecosystem service information FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FIP Fishery Improvement Project FOS Friend of the Sea GAA Global Aquaculture Alliance GGN Global G.A.P. Number GlobalGAP Global Partnership for Good Agricultural Practice GHG Green House Gas IFOAM International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements ISO International Organization for Standardization ISEAL International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance MSC Marine Stewardship Council NGO Non Governmental Organization SES Social Ecological System SSNC Swedish Society for Nature Conservation

xi Introduction

Promises and pitfalls of current seafood production Producing enough food for a growing world population without increasing the pressure on the world’s ecosystems is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Food production accounts for around one third of global emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG) (Foley et al. 2011) and is likely one of the most important causes of land degradation and loss of biodiversity (Eshel et al. 2014; Garnett 2013; Maxwell et al. 2016). Given that the world population is estimated to reach 9-10 billion people by 2050 (United Nations 2015) there is an urgent need to increase production and/or availability of food during the years to come (Reisch et al. 2013). Seafood could potentially have an increasingly important role to play given its attractive health profile (Beveridge et al. 2013; Rizos et al. 2012; Thilsted et al. 2016) and, in comparison to other animal based foods, generally small environmental footprint (Hall et al. 2011). Seafood is particularly important for poor coastal communities and make up around 20% of protein intake for 3 billion people. While production from capture fisheries has reached a ceiling, aquaculture continues to be one of the fastest growing food production systems in the world (Béné et al. 2015; Troell et al. 2014).

The so called ‘blue revolution’ (gaining increased attention after an epony- mous article in The Economist August 7th 2003) is a global phenomenon that took off in the 1970s and covers diverse aquaculture production systems such as Indonesian tilapia produced in inland lakes to shrimp ponds in Thailand embedded in mangrove forest and Norwegian salmon farmed in deep, cold fjords. The rapid development of the aquaculture sector has largely been associated with technological improvements, or a ‘techno-fix’ and has been criticized for neoliberal drivers and advocates (Islam 2014). In particular the expansion of penaeid shrimp (primarily Penaeus monodon and Litopenaeus vannamei) farming in the global south has since the early 1990s received substantial criticism for detrimental environmental practices, for instance deforestation of mangrove and leakage of chemicals and excess nutrients, and negative social implications (Béné 2005; Gräslund et al. 2003; Naylor et al. 2000; Primavera 1991; Vandergeest et al. 1999). Other environmental concerns associated with seafood farming are unsustainable use of forage fish for marine feeds (Naylor et al. 2009; Tacon and Metian 2009; Deutsch et al. 2007),

12 escapes of non-native species (Beveridge et al. 1994) and spread of diseases (Krkošek et al. 2007). Environmental impacts from capture fisheries also remain a global concern with many stocks being overexploited or depleted (FAO 2014; Pauly et al. 1998) and marine ecosystems degraded (McCauley et al. 2015; Nyström et al. 2012). Additionally, the new level of global con- nectivity is shifting the context for studying, understanding, and managing marine ecosystems in relation to both capture fisheries and aquaculture (Österblom et al. 2016).

A number of tools and methods have been developed to assess the environmental performance of seafood production systems. One of the earliest was ecological footprint studies (Folke et al. 1998; Kautsky et al. 1997), estimating the spatial area needed to support aquaculture operations such as salmon and shrimp farms. More recent examples include Global Aquaculture Per- formance Index (GAPI) (Volpe et al. 2010) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (Henriksson et al. 2012). A better understanding of advantages and limitations of existing tools (Deutsch et al. 2000), as well as development of new ones, is of great importance for furthering the understanding of the environmental profile of specific system types and species, and for enabling comparisons with other animal sourced foods. In conclusion, the seafood sector including both aquaculture and capture fisheries has the potential to supply a growing world population with nutritious food with a comparatively small environmental footprint, but future production also holds great challenges linked to environmental impacts and uneven distribution of nutrients and revenues (Smith et al. 2010).

Given the contemporary features of seafood production being characterized by domination of a few large corporations and extensive trade of fisheries and aquaculture products (Österblom et al. 2015; Troell et al. 2014), the role of market based mechanisms in fostering positive change is gaining increased attention from policymakers, the industry and academia. The size (annual sales value) of large corporations now outstrip that of the majority of the world’s nations’ GDP (Rothkopf 2012) and market actors can therefore be considered key players in shaping natural resources management (Kareiva et al. 2015). While almost half the catch from capture fisheries, 90% of people employed in fisheries (World Bank et al. 2012) and that a substantial share of Asian aquaculture producers (Bondad-Reantaso et al. 2009) can be defined as being small-scale, large corporations dominate the seafood sector in terms of monetary value. It has for instance been demonstrated that thirteen corporations together correspond to 18% of the total value of global seafood production in 2012 (Österblom et al. 2015). A parallel trend is an emergence of sustainability commitments among large market actors (Dauvergne and Lister 2012). Examples from the seafood sector include Walmart, Ikea and McDonald’s pledging to solely offer eco-labeled seafood alternatives to their

13 customers (Auld 2014; IKEA 2015; McDonald’s 2013). Moreover, the recent initiative by the Rio 2016 only supplying MSC and ASC certified seafood during the Olympic and Paralympic Games (MSC 2016b) further illustrates that the ‘sustainable seafood movement’ (Konefal 2013) is breaking new ground. Eco-certification has been referred to as a key mechanism in governing sustainability through value chains, thus improving production and consumption practices by linking producers, retailers and consumers (chain components) with external actors such as environmental NGOs and academia to stimulate environmental improvements (Bush et al. 2014).

The rise of voluntary sustainability standards Eco-certification can be viewed as a market based, often non-state, governance instrument developed partly in response to a perceived failure of other mechanisms in reducing environmental impacts from conventional practices. Broadly, the process of eco-certification can be divided into three separate stages: setting the agenda/formulating standards, implementation of set standards and monitoring/enforcement (Gulbrandsen 2014). Certification used to be perceived as a mechanism for distinguishing a particularly well performing segment of producers, but today a substantial share of producers of export oriented commodities is certified. For instance 38% of all coffee, 22% of cocoa, 10% of capture fisheries and around 5% of farmed seafood is currently certified against one or several third party eco-certification programs (Jonell et al. 2013; MSC 2014a; Potts et al. 2014).

Seafood eco-certification took off in the early 2000s with the first wild seafood product certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and available to consumers in 2001 (Auld 2014; MSC 2016a). Whereas the MSC soon gained momentum among large corporate actors such as retailers as well as consumers, the evolvement of aquaculture certification was more gradual. Besides the development of organic aquaculture standards (IFOAM) in various nations (Bergleiter 2008), the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP), initially focusing primarily on farmed shrimp, was the first larger scheme of relevance for the aquaculture sector to be developed (Béné 2005; Lee 2008). In the mid-2000s, the market for eco-labeled seafood had begun to mature, partly due to increased interest from large retailers such as Wal-Mart, thus opening up for more certification programs to enter the scene (Auld 2014). Among these programs, Friend of the Sea (FOS) for both capture fisheries and aquaculture and GlobalGAP for aquaculture (primarily business-to-business but seafood products are now to be labeled as GGN) were the most notable in terms of market share and vol- umes of seafood certified. In 2010, around ten years after launching the MSC, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) was founded through a

14 collaborative effort between the WWF and the Dutch Sustainability Trade Initiative (IDH). As of January 2016, in total 200 farms in 24 countries were certified against the ASC-standard (ASC 2016). Most present day private governance regimes, including the MSC and ASC for seafood, were created through multi-stakeholder dialogues including representatives from e.g. industry, NGOs and academia. Recent research has shown that the participa- tory process of the aquaculture dialogues (formulating standards for the ASC) has been somewhat limited due to e.g. exclusion of small-scale farmers and NGOs from developing countries (Belton et al. 2010; Havice and Iles, 2015). However, the dialogue approach implies participation of a larger set of stakeholders than e.g. industry led schemes (e.g. the GAA) and provides a platform for mutual learning among participating organizations and individuals. As eco-certification schemes for fisheries and aquaculture have prolifer- ated, the volume seafood being certified has increased substantially (Fig. 1). Between 2003 and 2015 the volume of captured and farmed seafood being eco-certified increased with 35% per year from 500.000 tons to 23 million tons, thus ten times faster than seafood production globally (Potts et al. 2016). Yet, non-certified seafood make up 85.8% of current production, and the figure for aquaculture is even larger with only 6% of global production being eco-certified by 2015 (Potts et al. 2016). It has been projected that future growth of certified wild seafood likely will be constrained by lack of data on the status of stocks of consideration. Instead it is expected that the certified portion will increase due to more aquaculture operations being certified (Potts et al. 2016).

10 Capture ﬁsheries 9 Aquaculture 8

Million tons cerCﬁed 3

0 MSC, 1997 FOS, 2008 GlobalGAP, 2004 GAA/BAP, 2004 FOS, 2008 ASC, 2010 IFOAM, 1996 B2B

Figure 1 Million tons certified by the largest seafood eco-certification programs (or umbrella organizations), year of establishment and consumer facing label (GlobalGAP is primarily a business to business scheme and therefore no logo is presented). Data from 2013 (IFOAM and GAA/BAP), 2014 (FOS) and 2015 (MSC, ASC and GlobalGAP) (Potts et al. 2016).

15 While eco-certification of seafood has been suggested to be a viable mechanism for improving fisheries and aquaculture systems (Agnew et al. 2013a; Martin et al. 2012; Tlusty and Tausig 2014), it has also been criticized for excluding small scale producers (Belton et al. 2011; Jacquet and Pauly 2008) and for not including a systems perspective including all relevant product life cycle stages and environmental impacts in standards (Belton et al. 2011; Pelletier and Tyedmers 2008; Thrane et al. 2009). Moreover, scholars have questioned the role of certification in driving positive change of the seafood sector. For instance, Froese and Proelss (2012) suggest that, according to their definition of overfished fish stocks, 31% of the MSC certified fisheries and 19% of fisheries certified by the FOS are subjected to overfishing. Pub- lishing of this study was followed by a debate on the definition of ‘overfished’ (Agnew et al. 2013b; Froese and Proelss 2013), illustrating the complexity of formulating objective standards of seafood sustainability. Seafood certification, particularly for aquaculture systems, has also received attention for introducing top down governance structures with western/northern markets influencing standards and production practices for aquaculture farmers in the south (Hatanaka 2009). Moreover, certification and eco-labeling has been described as a contemporary form of imperialism with certified farms/production systems constituting extraterritorial empires with their own set of rules differing from national legislation and governing structures (Vandergeest and Unno 2012).

Environmental NGOs have been key actors in the eco-certified seafood value chain, for instance in participating in multi-stakeholder dialogues setting certification standards (Havice and Iles 2015), providing information to consumers and other market actors (e.g. through seafood recommendation lists) (Roheim 2009) and organizing boycotts directed towards products and producers having a comparatively large environmental footprint (Jacquet and Pauly 2007). Seafood eco-certification has received a mixed response from NGOs and the role of non-state, market-based initiatives in stimulating change has been extensively debated. WWF has been an important player in the formation of both the MSC and ASC and therefore, unsurprisingly, holds a comparatively positive standpoint on market based sustainability initiatives for fisheries and aquaculture. Nonetheless, WWF has also articulated criticism, particularly regarding whether ASC-standards for farmed seafood guarantee sustainable sourcing of feed (WWF 2015). Greenpeace constitute an example of an organization with an equivocal standpoint towards certified seafood, bolstering retailers devoted to only sell MSC-labeled fisheries products and at the same time criticizing MSC-certified fisheries for sustaining unsustainable fishing practices (Auld and Cashore 2013). In Swe- den, there is an ongoing debate between WWF Sweden and The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) on whether ASC certified tropical prawn (Penaeus monodon and Litopenaeus vannamei) is to be recommended as a

16 ‘good choice’ (Naturvetarna 2012). While WWF supports ASC-certification at large, SSNC asserts that the ASC-standards for penaid shrimp are not adequately addressing the existing environmental impacts and therefore cannot be recommended to consumers (SSNC 2015). These examples demonstrate that differing views on the level, and definition of, environmental sustainability that can be guaranteed by market based mechanisms, can create intra- and interorganizational frictions between environmental NGOs, and that the role of seafood certification in driving positive change is a con- tentious issue.

The current understanding of how far voluntary sustainability standards and eco-certification schemes contribute with tangible environmental effects remains limited (Blackman and Rivera 2010). Despite that eco-labeled products have been present on the market for more than two decades, only a small body of literature has investigated the environmental effects of seafood eco-certification schemes. Most studies has so far focused on investigating effects of MSC-certification on capture fisheries (Gutiérrez et al. 2012; Karlsen et al. 2012; Martin et al. 2012; Selden et al. 2016) and used the status of the fish stock as a measure for success. At the time of writing, only one study has investigated environmental effects of aquaculture certification (Tlusty and Tausig 2014) and there is a major knowledge gap on the role of eco-certification for improving the growing aquaculture sector.

Linking production and consumption - the role of consumers in stimulating change The role of consumers in driving a transformation of the current food system has been intensively investigated over the last decade (Carlsson-Kanyama and González 2009; Garnett et al. 2015). Despite that the level of awareness of negative environmental impacts from conventional agriculture and seafood production systems can be expected to have increased during the last decade, the dominating trend in current food consumption is a continuously high demand for products with a large environmental footprint. For instance, meat consumption remains high in wealthy parts of the world and is increasing in developing regions (FAO 2009), and the share of eco-labeled products on the market remains limited (Potts et al. 2014). Thus there seem to be a weak relationship between consumers’ knowledge and attitudes on the one hand, and their purchasing behavior on the other (Bray et al. 2011; Krystallis et al. 2009). One reason for this ‘attitude-behavioral gap’ could be that until now, the most commonly used policy mechanism to shift consumer behavior towards environmental sustainability is information-based instruments (Reisch et al. 2013), despite that awareness making of environmental

17 implications of a certain conduct is known to rarely alter behavior (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). Moreover, a potential barrier to increased engagement and pro-environmental behavior could be that present day consumers are mentally disconnected from nature and food producing ecosystems (Folke et al. 2011; Miller 2005), including marine systems and fisheries (Crona et al. 2015; Deutsch et al. 2011). Lack of concern for negative environmental impacts linked to food production (Bamberg 2003) and knowledge about how food is produced (Grunert et al. 2014; Pieniak et al. 2013) most likely limit demand for sustainable alternatives.

Eco-labels could potentially strengthen the connection between marine ecosystems and consumers through providing i) information, ii) a guarantee of traceability, and iii) the existence of a price premium hypothetically indicating an internalization of ecosystem costs (Crona et al. 2015). Earlier work on predictors for sustainable seafood consumption has denoted that variables such as objective knowledge, concern for negative environmental impacts from conventional production, trust in certification schemes, interest in seafood origin, and perceived consumer effectiveness correlate positively with attitudes towards seafood eco-labeling (Brécard et al. 2009; Verbeke et al. 2007), or willingness to pay for labeled alternatives (Johnston et al. 2001; Roheim et al. 2012). While consumers are theoretically in a position to drive demand for sustainably produced food, their role in actually contributing to a more sustainable food production system - especially in contrast to governmental and market actors - is uncertain. Increasing the understanding of which internal (i.e. cognitive and affective variables) and external factors (e.g. price and availability) that influence pro-environmental behavior like consumption of eco-labeled food, is therefore imperative for identifying measures that can stimulate increased demand for sustainably produced alternatives.

Scope of thesis

Theoretical framework and research gap A key ontological assumption of this thesis is that humans and social processes are tightly linked to, and ultimately dependent on, nature and ecosystem function (Berkes and Folke 1998). Social-ecological systems (SES) have been defined as a system of ecosystems and human society, including reciprocal feedbacks (Carpenter and Folke 2006). Within SES theory, another assump- tions is that humans are dependent on nature for maintenance of social structures and for mere survival, and humans affect nature in various ways influencing the extent ecosystems can deliver key ecosystem services.

Weak versus strong sustainability are two concepts of relevance for the forth- coming interpretation and discussion on the results of this thesis (Fig. 2). The extent to which natural capital is to be regarded substitutable with human made replacements (weak sustainability) or non-replicable/very limited (strong sustainability) distinguish the two concepts (Ziegler and Ott 2011). A strong sustainability stance with respect to seafood production systems and the limits of substitutability of critical natural capital, e.g. loss of key ecosystem services and biodiversity, is taken here and reflected in how I place myself in the coming discussion about the ultimate goals of voluntary sustainability standards.

Figure 2 Conceptual figure illustrating strong sustaina- Economies bility, i.e. a school of thought that questions the substitutability of natural capital with Human socie/es human, or manufactured, capital. Adapted from Folke Sustainability (1991). Earth life suppor/ng systems

Photo 2 (the opposite page) Seafood market in Ho Chi Minh City. Photo: Malin Jonell

19 The need for a systems level approach and increased knowledge of cross scale dynamics for understanding the causes and potential solutions on environmental challenges of today has been lifted earlier by sustainability scientists (Eakin et al. 2009; Folke 2006; Folke et al. 2011; Österblom et al. 2016). In the research conducted for this thesis, the hypothetical role of consumers as individual agents in affecting a large-scale market based mechanism (eco- certification potentially reducing the pressure on the worlds’ ecosystems) is investigated. The cross-scale dynamics perspective offers an interesting avenue for placing individual consumers’ purchasing behavior of seafood in perspective to global phenomena such as environmental effects of seafood certification on the worlds’ aquatic ecosystems.

In order to understand the potential for voluntary sustainability standards in greening the ‘blue revolution’ and reducing negative impacts on fish stocks and marine ecosystems caused by the worlds capture fisheries, better insights in the present (and potential) effectiveness of eco-certification schemes are needed. Moreover, the role of consumer demand in stimulating change requires further investigation. The research gap this thesis aims to help fill re- lates both to the lack of knowledge on the ecological (here defined as effects on local ecosystems) and environmental effects (global scale effects such as impacts on global warming) implementation of seafood eco-certification may have and the extent consumers will be a significant driver for change. By applying a social-ecological lens on fisheries and aquaculture eco- certification and pro-environmental seafood consumption, new insights and perspectives can emerge. Earlier work has made it clear that eco-certification can function as a receipt of a certain (good) performance (Gutiérrez et al. 2012) and that the volume of seafood being certified, particularly the farmed segment, is continuously increasing (Potts et al. 2016). Questions that remain unanswered are for instance the degree to which seafood certification guar- antees truly environmentally benign practices (in agreement with strong sustainability) and whether the mechanism functions as a vehicle for substantive change. On the consumer side, the body of literature investigating internal psychological factors influencing pro-environmental seafood consumption remains relatively limited in comparison to other food products. Moreover, the Swedish market - being one of the most pro-environmental consumption oriented in the world - is under-researched with respect to sustainable seafood consumption. The role of people’s knowledge on how seafood is produced and their emotional connectedness with seafood production systems deserves particular attention, given earlier work suggesting weakening ecological feedbacks between seafood production systems and consumers (Crona et al. 2015).

20 Thesis aim and objectives Taking a systems perspective on seafood sustainability, including environmental effects of eco-certification and the potential of consumer driven demand, this thesis aims at investigating how effective current eco-certification schemes are in improving the environmental performance of aquaculture and fisheries. Moreover, the role of eco-labeling in reconnecting consumers with marine ecosystems through so-called ‘blue-green consumption’ is explored (Fig. 3). The specific objectives are to:

1. Assess and predict environmental effects of aquaculture eco-certification. 2. Investigate the suitability of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a tool to evaluate seafood eco-certification. 3. Analyze the linkages between seafood certification and ecosystem services. 4. Explore the role of consumers in transforming the seafood sector. 5. Suggest improvements of current seafood eco-certification.

ed seafo Farm od

Demand

Eco-label E s n t v c ir a on p mental im Certifcation Eco-certifcation standard

Figure 3 Figure depicting a simplified value chain of farmed seafood where eco- certified shrimp are produced and subsequently consumed. Production is dependent on resources, such as land and feed, and gives rise to environmental impacts. But to what extent is certification as a mechanism reducing negative environmental impacts (Paper I-III, left side of the figure)? Pro-environmental seafood consumption is driven, at least in part, by psychological characteristics of the individual consumer. A better understanding of these factors is conceivably important for stimulating an increased demand for eco-certified seafood in the future (Paper IV-V, right side of the figure).

21 The thesis starts with a literature review where the potential of aquaculture eco-certification to have substantial environmental effects at global scale was investigated (Paper I). Thereafter a case study where eco-certified mangrove-integrated shrimp farms in Vietnam were compared with non-certified and conventional shrimp farms with respect to environmental impacts using LCA (Paper II) is presented. In Paper III, a literature review was used to investigate the potential of ecosystem service information in improving implementation and evaluation of eco-certification of various commodities (including seafood), and the environmental effects of eco-certification. In order to examine the potential of consumers to drive demand for eco-labeled seafood, the relative importance of internal (psychological) variables deemed relevant for pro-environmental consumption was investigated (Paper IV) and ‘unpacked’ through a qualitative research approach (Paper V). The papers included cover global (Paper I), global/regional (Paper III) and local scale perspectives (Paper II, IV-V) as well as production and consumption steps of the seafood value chain (Fig. 4).

Paper I Global Investigating the potential role of eco-certification in improving the aquaculture sector

Paper III Reviewing earlier work on ecological effects of eco- certification and outlining potential use of ES information in eco- certification schemes.

Paper II Paper IV&V Local Comparing the environmental Exploring the role of consumers in performance of certified and non- transforming the seafood sector through certified shrimp farms using LCA sustainable consumption

Production Consumption

Figure 4 Scope of thesis and scale of included work. By combining studies on local and global scale as well as on different elements of the seafood value chain, new insights on the role of eco-certification in improving the aquaculture and fishery sector was obtained.

22 Methods

Study area The empirical research of this thesis was conducted in Ngọc Hiển and Năm Căn district in Cà Mau province, Vietnam (Paper II) and in Stockholm, Sweden (Paper IV-V). Cà Mau is the leading province for Vietnamese shrimp production and currently holds about half of the remaining mangrove forest the Mekong delta (Ha et al. 2012a) (Fig. 5). Mangrove-integrated farms, operating with a minimum or no input of feed and fertilizer, produce around 5% of the total volume of shrimp from the province and have received increased attention the last years. For instance, leading sustainable seafood authorities such as the Seafood Watch have recently lifted mangrove-integrated farms as ‘flagship systems’ representing examples of truly environmentally sustainable aquaculture (Bridson 2013). Therefore, the area constitutes a particularly interesting arena for studying environmental effects from implementation of eco-certification.

Cái Nước Đầm Dơi Phú Tân

Năm Căn

NAM CAN

Vietnam

Ngọc Hiển

0 km 15 km N Areas with shrimp farms certﬁed as organic

Figure 5 Map showing Cà Mau province Vietnam where LCA-data for Paper II was gathered. The round dots represent areas with shrimp farms certified as organic. Figure from Jonell and Henriksson (2015).

23 Stockholm, Sweden was chosen for studying consumer perceptions of eco- certified seafood (Paper IV-V). The selected research area can be considered representing an extreme end of sustainable food purchasing with organic food comprising around 8% of the total yearly sales value (Ekoweb Sverige 2014) and with Swedish consumers reporting using sustainability labels in a greater extent than consumers in other European countries (Grunert et al. 2014). Results that demonstrate barriers for eco-labeled seafood demand in one the most green consumption oriented nations in the world will likely also be applicable to other regions where consumers show an interest for eco- labeled food products.

Methodological approach Literature and standard documents review A summary of the included papers and the methodological approach can be found in Table 1 in the end of this section. A review of existing published, peer-reviewed studies and gray (unpublished) literature was conducted to examine the potential of seafood eco-certification to have environmental effects in the global scale (Paper I). Data on the current volume of seafood certified and targeted species was gathered through personal communication with representatives for certification schemes, scientific and grey literature and standard holders’ web sites (Paper I). In order to assess the degree to which certification schemes cover key environmental impacts, standards documents for farmed shrimp were examined with respect to inclusion of commonly used impact categories in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Eco- certification schemes were selected based on current and future projected importance for the aquaculture sector: GlobalGAP, GAA/BAP, ASC, Aquagap, Naturland, Soil Association, KRAV, Debio and Fairtrade. The impact categories included were ‘global warming’, ‘acidification’, ‘eutrophication’ and ‘biotic resource use’ (inclusion of fish meal and fish oil in aquaculture feed) (Paper I). For Paper III, a literature review on ecological effectiveness of eco-certification on a range of commodities (including seafood, coffee, palm oil and wood) was performed. The potential role of ES- information in improving implementation, monitoring and evaluation of eco- certification schemes was explored though an investigation of the language used in standards documents. The main question posed was how spatially explicit socio-ecological information, e.g. on carbon storage and biodiversity at a given location, could be applied to further the prospects of sustainability standards to foster enduring change.

24 Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was used to investigate differences in environmental performance between eco-certified and non-certified shrimp farms (Paper II) and applied as a framework for evaluating seafood eco- certification standards (Paper I). A key feature of LCA is that it enables evaluation of environmental impacts across the whole value chain of a given product, from acquisition of raw materials to consumption and waste han- dling (Baumann and Tillman 2004). The impacts are attributed a functional unit, e.g. one ton salmon or shrimp, and categorized to selected impact categories, e.g. global warming, eutrophication and acidification. The LCA procedure follows the directives provided by ISO (14040-14044) (ISO 2006) and includes three separate phases: (1) goal and scope definition, (2) life cycle inventory analysis and (3) life cycle assessment. LCA has become a common and broadly accepted tool for evaluating the environmental performance of products and services (EU 2015), and ultimately guide policy decisions and consumer recommendations. The method is particularly useful for identifying so called ‘hot spots’ in production practices, i.e. production phases with comparatively high environmental impacts. In Paper II, LCA was used to investigate differences between three groups of shrimp (P. monodon) farms in Vietnam: (i) mangrove-integrated conventional2, (ii) mangrove-integrated eco-certified (organic) and (iii) semi-intensive/intensive conventional. Since it was assumed that shrimp from all systems considered are processed, trans- ported and consumed in the same way, the system boundary was set to cra- dle to farm gate. This means that all processes related to e.g. provision of energy, feed, production of broodstock and larvae and cultivation of shrimp were included, but not e.g. transport of shrimp or human consumption. Pri- mary data on production processes was collected through structured interviews with 21 certified and 20 non-certified mangrove-integrated shrimp farmers in Ca Mau, Vietnam (group i and ii). Data for the conventional farms (group iii) was gathered from the SEAT project (Henriksson et al. 2014a) and included 20 intensive and 60 semi-intensive farms. The midpoint CML-baseline method was used in the inventory analysis and modeling was performed in CMLCA (v. 5.2; www.cmlca.eu).

Quantitative questionaries Data for the quantitative consumer study (Paper IV) was gathered through questionnaires distributed to consumers in Stockholm, Sweden. The most common critique towards stated preferences research, e.g. contingent valuation, willingness to pay or stated behavior as this study, is that the results are highly hypothetical (e.g. Loomis 2011). According to critics, only when ob- serving actual behavior can we be sure that an intention is translated to actu-

2 Conventional here is used for ‘non-certified’

25 al conduct, given all external variables of relevance (e.g. price). Experimental methods therefore allow for a more nuanced understanding of consumer conduct. However, examples of methodological issues of experimental approaches are that respondents may adjust their behavior after what they believe the experimenters are looking for, and so called expectancy effects, i.e. that researchers influence their respondents (Nichols and Edlund 2015). A key advantage with using questionnaires to capture certain behaviors, on the other side, is that it enables analysis of large sets of data and, to some degree, generalizations of results and performance of statistical tests. An additional benefit is that data collection from a rather sizeable group of respondents is doable even during shorter periods of time. For this thesis (Pa- per IV) in total 500 self-administered questionnaires were distributed to seafood consumers in Stockholm. While the non-probability sampling strategy used here does not guarantee that the views of a statistically representative portion of the population is captured, the composition of the respondent group with respect to demographic variables indicated that a broad segment of the population was captured. Of the total set of surveys, 406 were re- turned fully filled in and 371 completed with respect to all questions of relevance for the statistical analysis and excluding don’t know answers. Likert scale type questions ranging from one to five were applied to capture consumer perceptions of the majority of constructs measured.

Qualitative deep interviews In order to deepen the understanding of what shapes pro-environmental consumption of seafood and how consumers reason around key factors identified as important in Paper IV, follow up interviews (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009) were conducted with a subset of the respondents (Paper V). An important characteristic of qualitative research methodology is openness to respondents’ perceptions, thus that it is not providing a given frame of possible answers. Hence, a qualitative approach can give a richer understanding of how people think around topics of interest and the mechanisms behind certain patterns observable in quantitative datasets. Qualitative approaches such as semi-structured interviews consequently draw more on an epistemology of interpretivism than positivism (Repko 2012) and offers a more multi- faceted understanding of the mechanisms behind consumer choice and sense of personal responsibility. Even though every interview respondent is unique and generalizations on a larger population can be argued to be impossible, a deeper understanding of some of the key factors determining the degree of environmentally conscious behavior and key barriers and incentives for sustainable consumption of seafood can be obtained. While the quantitative approach (e.g. the use of questionnaires) stems from a more positivistic knowledge tradition valuing quantification of results, qualitative methodology originates from an epistemology where interpretation and understating

26 (rather than looking for explanation through figures) is most crucial. A challenge for the consumer-oriented work in this thesis (Paper IV and V) can therefore be positioning with regards to the level of generalizability as well as interpretability of results. However, as argued by Repko (2012, p 208), the “quantitative versus qualitative debate is largely over” and most interdisciplinary researchers today support a mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Statistical analyses To account for uncertainty in the dataset used in the LCA conducted for Paper II, dispersions were defined for unit process data in accordance with Henriksson et al. (2014b), i.e. including inherent uncertainties of data collected (e.g. due to lack of representativeness in time and space) and spread around means. Monte Carlo simulations (1000 iterations) were performed to generate a set of LCI-results for further analysis. In Paper IV general linear modeling with model averaging (Symonds and Moussalli 2010) based on AIC was used for investigating the extent to which variables of interest corre- lated with stated purchasing of eco-labeled seafood. In other words, instead of using conventional multiple regression analysis (MRA) generating the one best model, we applied an information theoretic approach generating a set of potential models all explaining the dependent variable to a certain degree (Burnham et al. 2011; Burnham and Anderson 2004). The main advantage is that the method enables multi-hypothesis testing and thereby better reflects the reality with the existence of several explanatory models being almost equally good at predicting the dependent variable.

27 Table 1 Analytical focus and methodological approach of each of the papers in the thesis.

Research questions Methodological approach

Paper What is the likely role of eco- Literature review and exami- I certification in improving the envi- nation of certification stand- ronmental performance of the aqua- ards. culture sector? Paper What is the difference in environmen- Life Cycle Assessment includ- II tal performance between (i) eco- ing statistical measures to certified (organic) mangrove integrat- include uncertainties. ed, (ii) non-certified mangrove integrated and (iii) conventional intensive/semi-intensive shrimp farms? Paper What is the potential role of spatial Literature review and exami- III ecosystem service information in im- nation of certification stand- proving the effectiveness of voluntary ards and supporting docu- sustainability standards? What is the ments. empirical evidence of ecological effects of eco-certification programs? Paper To what extent are Swedish consumers Quantitative questionnaires VI aware of how seafood is produced and and general linear modeling. associated environmental challenges? Which internal (psychological) factors is most important for predicting Swe- dish consumers’ stated purchasing of eco-labeled seafood? Paper How can the two most important Qualitative interviews and V variables as identified in Paper IV, content analysis. awareness of seafood eco-labels and concern, be stimulated, and what are the most important potential barriers towards increased demand for eco- labeled seafood in Sweden?

28 Reflection on interdisciplinarity

To obtain a better understanding of the potential role of market based mechanisms (e.g. eco-certification) in improving the environmental performance of seafood production systems, a systems perspective including insights from both natural science and social science with tools for understanding human behavior is needed. A key challenge for combating today’s environmental problems is how to translate single individuals’ actions to the mac- roscopic level, thus large-scale ecological effects. Gaining knowledge of the behavioral dynamics of individual consumers is therefore a prerequisite for increasing the understanding of to what extent eco-labeling can contribute to a transformation towards seafood sustainability. According to Repko (2012, p77), if a research question/area has been approached by representatives of a number of different disciplines, it is well suited to be investigated from an interdisciplinary perspective. Environmental effects of aquaculture and capture fisheries has been frequently lifted in literature, primarily from a natural science/ecologist perspective (Jackson et al. 2001; Klinger and Naylor 2012; Naylor et al. 2000; Pauly et al. 2002). There is also a growing body of research studies exploring the role of market based mechanisms (Jacquet et al. 2009), and in particular eco-labeling for improving the environmental performance of seafood production systems (e.g. Bush et al. 2013ab; Froese and Proelss 2012; Kaiser and Hill 2010; Tlusty and Tausig 2014; Tlusty 2012). A substantial share of these studies stem from sustainability science, a relatively new field in which most authors has a background in ecology/natural science. Alongside the attempts to understand the role of eco-certification in improving the practices of aquaculture and fisheries, environmental psy- chologists as well as behavioral- and agricultural economists have studied which internal and external factors that affect individuals’ pro-environmental behavior in general (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Stern and Dietz 1999) and consumption of sustainable food in particular (Peattie 2010; Pieniak et al. 2010; Sparks and Shepherd 1992; Vermeir and Verbeke 2006).

Interdisciplinary research is often described as a collaborative work where representatives from different disciplinary traditions meet around a (set number of) research question(s) (e.g. Sokolova 2013). Each participant then brings in a deep knowledge of the disciplinary perspective of the school of

29 thought they represent. Whereas this traditional way of performing interdisciplinary studies implies challenges, for instance the risk of ontological and epistemological conflicts and lack of common language, an advantage is that contributing researchers are profoundly rooted in a certain disciplinary perspective. Presently, however, interdisciplinary scientists are integrating many different disciplinary perspectives at an individual level. The resulting lack of deeper disciplinary belonging implies certain challenges. Repko (2012, p193- 221) argues that in order to conduct interdisciplinary work in a credible manner and attain scholarly rigor, researchers need to gain sufficient ade- quacy in the disciplines included. Obtaining deep enough understanding of each discipline, identification of for the research relevant theories, as well as mastering relevant methodology, are identified as key prerequisites (Repko 2012). The key challenges for a ‘solo-interdisciplinarian’ like myself are therefore to find the balance between dedicating enough time to understand the perspectives and theories of the disciplines of interest, learning relevant methodology, and collecting and analyzing data. On a personal level, the process of integrating perspectives from ecology, industrial ecology, sustainability science and environmental psychology has certainly implied methodological and theoretical challenges, but at the same time been highly rewarding. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, together with the theoretical framework provided by the sustainability science component, provides a unique toolbox that enables a broad take on the complex research questions posed in this thesis.

30 Results and discussion

In the following section the results from the studies conducted (Paper I-V) will be presented, discussed upon and related to relevant theory and literature.

Objective 1: Predict environmental effects of seafood eco- certification Limitations attributable to certification infrastructure In Paper I we show that the selection of species currently being the focus of the major eco-certification programs for aquaculture poorly represent species preferred in non-Western markets. More than half of the species covered make up less than 1% of global aquaculture production by volume. Seafood produced in large quantities inevitably put pressure on the worlds’ ecosystems. One example is carp, which is the largest aquaculture species group (39% of the total volume of global aquaculture production in 2013, Potts et al. 2016) but not covered by any of the major eco-certification schemes. While a general trend is that certification programs move towards species- unspecific standards (e.g. GlobalGAP), others including the ASC still have species-specific standards. Not targeting carp, or other highly sought after species groups in Asia, limits the potential for environmental effects at scale. First, because of the exceptionally large volume of carp being produced and associated environmental impacts predominantly linked to feed and fertilizer use in intensive production systems (Hall et al. 2011). Second, as farmed carp, nevertheless, is a low impact species group in comparison to e.g. salmon and shrimp. It can be argued that including carp in certification programs may increase consumer acceptance for the species in regions where it hither- to has been considered unappealing (e.g. in Europe and North America). As also noted in earlier work (Bush et al. 2013a; Jacquet and Pauly 2007), the sole emphasis on species preferred in Europe and North America further illustrates the limitations of not marketing eco-labeled seafood products at Asian markets. Asia is particularly interesting from a seafood consumption perspective since it’s the region with the highest consumption of seafood per capita, accounting for two thirds of global seafood consumption and with the

31 highest farmed seafood production in the world (FAO 2014). Though tech- nically innovative aquaculture including Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) and Integrated Multi Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) holds some promise for greening the aquaculture sector, particularly in high income nations, future production is henceforth most likely dominated by Asian freshwater aquaculture in inland ponds (Edwards 2015). Excluding Asian consumers or seafood markets thus limits environmental benefits from seafood eco- certification (Paper I).

Since the overarching aim with eco-certification as a governance mechanism is to promote better practices and reward producers with a comparatively good conduct, farmers with the most environmentally detrimental practices are excluded (Paper I). The dilemma of certification not reaching producers furthest from complying with certification standards has been lifted before. According to Tlusty (2012), a single threshold certification system miss out in not targeting producers far below the required performance level for standard compliance. Bush et al. (2013b) use the MSC as an example and con- clude that a single threshold certification system fails at two points, first by not targeting the worst producers and second, by not creating incentives for the best performing producers to improve further. As an alternative to the generally prevailing single threshold certification model, both Tlusty (2012) and Bush et al. (2013b) suggest a multi-tiered certification system with a set number of performance levels a producer can aim for. Although the results from this thesis points in the same direction (Paper I), there is also a potential risk of consumer confusion when providing additional labels and sustainability claims for seafood suitability (Paper V) and moreover, that producers in the lower end of the performance curve, thus the ones not yet complying with conventional sustainability standards, are misleadingly marketed as environmentally sustainable (Sampson et al. 2015). Fisheries and Aquacul- ture Improvement Projects (FIPs/AIPs), often sponsored by the private sector and/or NGOs, constitute examples of market-based instruments directed towards seafood producers not yet complying with certification standards (Stratoudakis et al. 2016). While implying more lax requirements on producers than conventional sustainability standards, these programs can create an alternative pathway to global markets and therefore, at least to some extent, be considered competitors of eco-certification programs. Moreover, FIPs have been identified as an instrument for external ‘vertical differentiation’ of eco-certification standards (Bush and Oosterveer 2015), meaning a mechanism initiated by agents outside the certification program, e.g. the MSC or ASC, in order to create what Tlusty (2012) identifies as ‘pull’ of producers far under the certification threshold. An additional question mark is whether certification rewards a shift in performance, thus stimulate change, or if the mechanism simply attracts producers already performing according to set standards. The latter was observed among mangrove-integrated shrimp

32 farms in Vietnam where suitable producers were handpicked for organic certification (Paper II). In this case, most farmers did not have to make any changes in their production practices, but could more or less become certified by default.

A weakness of present eco-certification programs for aquaculture is that small scale farmers, constituting the lion’s share of producers for some commodities, e.g. salt water shrimp (Penaeus monodon and Litopenaeus vannamei), are at risk of being excluded from certification due to technical and monetary constrains (see also Belton et al. 2010; Khiem et al. 2010; Subasinghe and Phillips 2007). Concerns for exclusion of small scale producers from certification has been raised also for MSC certification of capture fisheries (Gulbrandsen 2009; Jacquet and Pauly 2008) and for other commodities such as forest products (Fischer et al. 2005). Since a considerable proportion of aquaculture farmers, especially in Asia, can be defined as small scale, they account for a substantial share of the total farmed seafood production in the world and the resources, e.g. land and feed, needed to sustain production. Not including these farmers in eco-certification programs consequently limits the potential of certification to lead to a transformation of the aquaculture sector towards environmental sustainability (Paper I).

Environmental impacts covered The degree to which eco-certification standards capture key environmental impacts from aquaculture systems and thereby warrants a truly environmentally sustainable product (in line with ‘strong sustainability’) is a relevant question for estimating the tool’s effectiveness. When investigating the scope of aquaculture eco-certification standards, a limited level of inclusion of commonly used LCA-impact categories was noted (Paper I). Of particular relevance was the lack of criteria pertaining to measures to reduce emissions of GHG and non-stringency of standards on use of fish meal and fish oil. Although all the investigated schemes emphasized the need to lower the dependence on forage fisheries for production of feed, well-defined metrics for compliance were missing (Paper I).

Mangrove-integrated shrimp farms has been lifted in earlier work as superior to conventional production systems due to a higher resilience towards disease outbreaks and external disturbances, low dependence of feed, antibiotics and other chemicals and for preserving the ecological functions of mangrove forest (Bush et al. 2010; Joffre et al. 2015; Primavera 2000). A state driven strategy for promoting mangrove-integrated shrimp farms in both Indonesia and Vietnam has been to offer farmers to lease farmland from state owned forest companies (Bosma et al. 2014; Ha et al. 2012b). Results from the study comparing certified (organic) and non-certified mangrove-integrated shrimp

33 farms in Vietnam (Paper II), however, demonstrated that farms show substantial global warming potential due to emissions of CO2 equivalents originating from construction of ponds on former mangrove land and associated loss of carbon sequestration. Although certified farmers stated that they did not alter production practices to get certified, the results showed that they emitted less CO2 than the non-certified farms. The explanation was that the certified farmers articulated a somewhat higher productivity in the ponds, leading to less mangrove land being converted for producing the functional unit being one ton of live weight shrimp. For the other two investigated impact categories, acidification and eutrophication, the trend was similar with certified farms having a slightly better performance with regards to acidification, and both groups (certified and non-certified) showing a net uptake of eutrophying substances due to a zero input of feed and removal of biomass during harvest of shrimp and other species produced in the ponds. Interest- ingly, in comparison to conventional semi-intensive and intensive shrimp farms, mangrove-integrated farms showed higher emissions of CO2- equivalents (eq) per ton shrimp produced than more intensive systems (20 tons CO2 eq. in comparison to in average 10 tons CO2 eq for semi- intensive/intensive farms). Though shrimp from intensive/semi-intensive farms were associated with higher emissions of substances potentially causing eutrophication and acidification than shrimp from mangrove-integrated farms, the results indicates that certified shrimp is not necessarily better from a global warming perspective than shrimp from non-certified farms (Paper II). Moreover, in line with earlier work (e.g. Pelletier and Tyedmers 2008) results from this case study shows a need for a systematic inclusion of life cycle perspectives in certification standards, including monitoring requirements and eventually set standards for GHG emissions.

While earlier work has pointed out mangrove-integrated farms as better than more intensive conventional shrimp farming systems, results from this thesis highlight areas where environmental superiority may be questioned. High emissions of CO2 eq. per ton shrimp produced due to low productivity in ponds located in ecologically valuable mangrove forest points towards a need to reconsider how well performing these systems are, particularly in relation to other potential management options. While not a direct result from Pa- per II, it was noted during the field study that the functionality of patches of mangrove forest being ‘locked in’ or trapped in the pond structure of integrated shrimp farms is likely reduced. This applies in particular to ecosystem services requiring that the forest is regularly flooded and have direct contact with river water. Examples of ecosystem services that may be negatively affected are carbon sequestration (Donato et al. 2011) and the nursery function for juvenile fish and crustaceans (Rönnbäck 1999), which are highly valuable from a societal perspective (Moberg and Rönnbäck 2003). This is particularly relevant in light of a recent initiative, ‘Markets and Mangrove’, aiming to

34 use mangrove-shrimp farms in Ca Mau as pilot systems for a new hybrid form of market based governance mechanism. The aim is to apply eco- certification defined as an Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) initiative for rewarding preservation of mangrove and associated carbon capturing through market demand for eco-labeled shrimp (IUCN 2016; Wylie et al. 2016).

While results pointed towards relatively high emissions of CO2 related to land conversion and reduced functionality of the mangrove ecosystem, it is worth noting that mangrove-shrimp farms, certified or not, performed well when it comes to a range of impacts, e.g. emissions of eutrophying substances and negative environmental effects of feed production (Paper II). Aiming for an increased production through e.g. higher quality post larvae (PL), together with considerations of redesigning shrimp farms for enabling functionality of the mangrove ecosystem, as for instance suggested by Bosma et al. (2014), could be valuable steps in the right direction. Nonetheless, an additional result from this work is that mangrove-shrimp farmers stated that they did not have to pursue any major changes in production practices in order to get certified (Paper II, see also Baumgartner and Nguyen 2016). This suggests that eco-certification in this case demonstrates a certain level of environmental performance but that it is more uncertain whether eco- certification is a driver for a transformation towards better practices.

Proofs of environmental effects from eco-certification A literature review on environmental effects of seafood eco-certification showed that to date, there have been very few research studies conducted (Paper III). Only one peer-reviewed study on effects of aquaculture certification had been published (Tlusty and Tausig 2014), and only three on capture fisheries certification (Gutiérrez et al. 2012; Hicks and Schnier 2008; Martin et al. 2012). Moreover, none of the investigated studies used credible counterfactuals, i.e. estimates of the outcomes of operations given that they would not have been certified (Blackman and Rivera 2010). One example is to consider so called ‘selection effects’, implying the certain characteristic that motivate a production unit to apply for certification. Put differently, a certified fishery or fish farm that performs relatively well from an environmental perspective and demonstrates a positive development over time might have done so also without the incentive/pressure from participating in a certification program. Consequently, there is not necessarily a causal link between superior performance or improvements over time and implementation of certification. Although credible counterfactuals were lacking, results from the literature review (Paper III) demonstrated that most work found positive effects of certification on fishing of farming practices (Gutiérrez et al. 2012; Hicks and Schnier 2008; Martin et al. 2012; Tlusty and Tausig 2014).

35 With one exception, showing a positive trend for MSC-certified fish stocks (Gutiérrez et al. 2012), research on ecological effects of seafood eco- certification has aimed at capturing changes in practices, and not in performance. An additional conclusion is that no studies have yet been published on effects of certification on a larger spatial (e.g. landscape) scale, or on marine ecosystems affected by fisheries. Though MSCs Principle 1, focusing on the status of the targeted fish stock, has been evaluated in earlier work, Prin- ciple 2 including standards on non-targeted species and affected ecosystems has not been assessed in any research study to date (Heupel and Auster 2013, Paper III).

Objective 2: Investigate the suitability of LCA in evaluating seafood eco-certification The results from this thesis and earlier work (e.g. Pelletier and Tyedmers 2008; Ziegler et al. 2016) demonstrate that present eco-certification programs for farmed seafood largely lack an LCA-perspective and therefore fail in capturing for aquaculture highly relevant environmental impacts (Paper I). The examination of certification standards with respect to inclusion of LCA categories also showed that the LCA-framework could be of importance for assessing the scope of eco-certification standards. Moreover, the research approach used in Paper II demonstrated that LCA could be a useful tool for evaluating differences in performance between certified and non-certified shrimp farms. A key strength of the LCA tool is that it enables a systems perspective, including the whole life cycle of a product. Consequent- ly, environmental impacts from processes normally not sufficiently covered in certification standards, e.g. feed production and modes of transport, are here accounted for. Contrary to other methods used to measure effects of seafood certification, LCA is a performance oriented approach enabling the researcher to assess implications of requested interventions rather than mapping changes in production practices (e.g. amount of feed used or alterations in fishing gears). Along these lines, LCA could be a suitable tool for improving certification standards and evaluating effects of implementing certification schemes. A major hurdle for scaling up utilization of LCA to evaluate the performance of certification at large is that the procedure is very time consuming, particularity the phase of gathering data specific for the production system investigated (i.e. foreground data) (Baumann and Tillman 2004).

One approach to accelerate and simplify data collection could be to systema- tize monitoring and compiling of relevant information needed for LCA. While Paper I showed a limited inclusion of common LCA-impact categories in aquaculture eco-certification standards, there are a few exceptions

36 constituting positive examples of how LCA-data could be systematically gathered as part of seafood certification programs. The present ASC-salmon standard for instance requires producers to conduct an energy use assessment, that farms keep records of GHG emissions at farm level and produce an annual GHG emission assessment, both at farm level and for feed used in production (ASC 2012, Criterion 4.6). Although there are no thresholds for how large emissions of CO2 equivalents are allowed to be in order for a production unit to get certified, the rational is that awareness making of producers will create incentives for future reductions of emissions. Interestingly, there are still no guidelines for if or how feed producers are to account for land use related impacts from feed production, which in earlier work has been deemed to be a major source of GHG emissions (Cederberg et al. 2011, Paper II). Nonetheless, requiring continuous monitoring of emissions of important compounds and other data of relevance could facilitate employ- ment of LCA in order to evaluate potential improvements over time and for comparisons with non-certified operations.

An additional limitation of using LCA to evaluate effectiveness of eco- certification is difficulties to capture effects on biodiversity and provision of ecosystem services. Impacts on biodiversity is challenging to assess through LCA due to the complexity of the concept (de Baan et al. 2013), including diversity at different levels (e.g. genetic and species) and ecological characteristics such as structure, composition and function, (Noss 1990). The multi- layered features of biodiversity therefore need to be boiled down, or more accurately, simplified to a few quantifiable and measurable variables where data is available, e.g. relative species richness as proposed by de Baan et al. (2013), in order to become assessable with LCA. Souza et al. (2015), however, highlight the needs to move beyond attempts to capture impacts on species level in LCA studies and instead focus more on assessing ecosystem functions, ecosystem dynamics and complexity. One example from this thesis where the latter approach would be appropriate is the potential loss of key ecosystem services caused by landscape fragmentation as noted for the mangrove-shrimp farms studied in Paper II, which presently cannot not be adequately captured by using standardized LCA methodology. The LCA- community, however, recognizes the importance of investigating effects on ecosystem services and ongoing work will most likely enable a more sophisti- cated inclusion in the future (Othoniel et al. 2015).

37 Objective 3: Analyze the linkages between seafood certification and ecosystem services Besides better coverage of LCA environmental impacts as noted in Paper I, results point towards the need for certification to ensure maintenance of key ecosystem services linked to functional ecosystems embedded in production landscapes and seascapes (Paper III). A limit of certification lifted in Paper II was the lack of considerations for loss of ecosystem services due to low intensity production of shrimp in, from an ecosystem service perspective, a valuable mangrove ecosystem (Bosma et al. 2014; Clough et al. 2004). In Paper III, sustainability standards for a range of commodities were investigated with respect to how spatially explicit ecosystem service information (ES information) could improve implementation and evaluation of standards. The degree of descriptiveness varied substantially between schemes and impacts targeted. A general trend observed for standards covering terrestrial production systems and aquaculture was that criteria for chemical and anti- biotic use and, to some extent, land use (e.g. specification of a certain year after which deforestation for establishment of aquaculture ponds not is allowed), were more detailed and precise than criteria for biodiversity, soil and water management. Although Paper III covers a broad set of commodities, the focus from here onwards will exclusively be on standards for aquaculture and capture fisheries.

For capture fisheries standards, ES-information could provide insights on stock status of the targeted species where the level of uncertainty is large, e.g. some developing country fisheries, and prevalence of IUCN Red List species in affected areas (Paper III). Criteria on avoidance of negative impacts on marine ecosystems could be found in the majority of investigated capture fisheries standards. A general trend was that these criteria are often quite vaguely phrased, e.g. from the MSC: practices should not “reduce the structure or function of vulnerable marine ecosystems”. ES-information could shed light on the characteristics and location of sensitive habitats as well as increase the understanding of the impacts a fishery could have on habitats and affected non-targeted species. Implementation and enforcement of aquaculture standards could also be improved through easily accessible ES- information. Two areas of particular relevance are environmental impacts related to land use and biodiversity. Implementation of criteria related to present and historical forest cover, of special relevance for shrimp farming where mangrove deforestation has been a major concern for decades (e.g. Primavera 1991), may well be facilitated and improved by use of ES- information on e.g. historical land use, suitable buffer zones defined for local conditions, carbon sequestration potential and identification of critical habitats for endangered species.

38 A key challenge for sustainability standards is balancing the degree of prescriptiveness in practice-based criteria and room for flexible interpretation given local conditions. Too specific criteria may on the one hand limit the extent to which site-specific ecological conditions are taken into consideration. One example is the following excerpt from the ASC-shrimp standard “For coastlines, lagoons or lakes, the zone of natural or restored vegetation must be 100 meters wide. For confined natural watercourses, such as rivers or streams, the zone of natural or restored vegetation must be at least 25 meters wide on both sides.” (ASC 2014). On the other hand, performance based criteria may be too vaguely phrased to be useful in the auditing procedure. For instance the MSC-standard at the lowest level of compliance requires that “The UoA [Unit of Assessment] is unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.” (MSC 2014b, PI 2.4.1). In comparison to criteria for terrestrial commodities, e.g. forest and agriculture products, most aquaculture standards include an obligation of mapping local conditions of relevance for criteria implementation. One example is requirements on conducting a Biodiversity Environmental Impact Assessment (B-EIA), required by e.g. the ASC and GlobalGAP, or an ecological footprint assessment included in the Friends of the Sea aquaculture standard. Though these approaches are a step towards locally adapted standards, and effectively a move away from the ‘one size fits all’ problem in present standards, a risk of too lenient interpretation and assessment procedures still pre- vails. The main benefit of ES-information here is that it could provide rich information on ecological conditions and key ecosystem services, and enable a more efficient assessment and evaluation procedure as well as effective implementation of standards (Paper III).

Objective 4: Explore the role of consumers in transforming the seafood sector In order to investigate the potential role of consumers in stimulating better seafood production practices, a survey was distributed among consumers in Stockholm, Sweden and followed up by qualitative interviews. Results showed that the level of awareness about (i) how seafood is produced and (ii) environmental impacts from aquaculture and fisheries can be considered moderate or low, as none of eight knowledge based questions posed had a correct response rate above 74% (Paper IV). Likewise, stated recognition and understanding of seafood eco-labels was low (with the one exception being the Swedish organic label, KRAV). Only 44% of respondents recognized the MSC-label, which has been present on seafood products since 2001 (12 years at the time of the survey). In addition, as many as 17% of

39 respondents stated recognition of a fake eco-label (‘EcoFish’), suggesting that the actual level of awareness of the real labels might be even lower than indicated by the results.

The best statistical model explaining stated purchasing of eco-labeled seafood contained the variables awareness of seafood eco-labels, concern for negative environmental impacts from seafood production, pro- environmental identity, perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE), objective knowledge and sense of personal responsibility. Two of the internal variables, concern for negative environmental impacts linked to seafood production (concern) and awareness of seafood eco-labels (labels), appeared relatively good at predicting stated purchasing of eco-labeled seafood. Models including these two variables accounted for 100% of the cumulative weight of all models generated (in total 512), demonstrating considerable importance in relation to the other variables. The explanatory power of concern (β=0.24) and labels (β= 0.23) was calculated through model averaging, implying multiply- ing the standardized β-coefficients with the weight of each model. A relatively low adjusted R2 value (0.26) for the best model indicates that external, here unmeasured, factors likely are of substantial importance for explaining pro-environmental seafood purchasing (see also Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Seyfang 2005) and that green consumption can be more difficult to predict than other pro-environmental behaviors, including ecological citizenship actions such as supporting pro-environmental policies (Turaga et al. 2010). Moreover, it has been suggested that positive environmental attitudes are more often translated to actual conduct in activities where the cost (actual or psychological) is small, compared to when a major investment is deemed necessary or when inconvenience is high (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Turaga et al. 2010). An attitude-behavior gap (Vermeir and Verbeke 2006) can therefore be expected for activities where the time or monetary investment, or perceived sacrifice, is high.

Results from Paper IV denote that in order to increase consumer demand for eco-labeled seafood through psychological mechanisms, consumers’ emotional engagement reflected in degree of concern for negative environmental impacts and ability to recognize and understand seafood eco-labels need to be strengthened. But how to best stimulate emotional engagement and seafood eco-label awareness? The follow-up, in depth interviews with a subset of the respondents (Paper V) gave insights in how Swedish consumers reflect on aquaculture and fisheries (objective knowledge), their concern about negative impacts from aquaculture and fisheries, awareness of seafood eco-labels and motivations for buying labeled seafood, also in relation to other eco- labeled food products. From the results, a number of barriers for increased demand for eco-labeled seafood in Sweden were outlined. First, limited knowledge about aquaculture, fisheries and marine ecosystems appear to

40 constrain the extent to which consumers feel concerned about the current state of the ocean. Since concern has been deemed important for predicting pro-environmental conduct (Bamberg 2003, Paper IV), ‘seafood illiteracy’ could limit demand for labeled alternatives. Second, lack of engaging real world stories about problematic practices in conventional seafood production or improvements achieved through eco-certification initiatives appear to constrain emotional engagement and, ultimately, interest for buying sustainable alternatives. Another potential hurdle is that fish and other seafood are ectotherms, that do not seem to awaken consumer empathy and concern for animal welfare to the same extent as endotherms like mammals (see also Frewer et al. 2005 and Honkanen and Olsen 2009). A fourth major barrier identified is that most respondents were not aware of any eco-labels for seafood, and that a minority understood the meaning or scope of the existing schemes. Results also revealed an unawareness of what eco-labeled can guarantee in relation to the absolute environmental impact of a product. Eco-labeled farmed salmon (Salmo salar) was perceived as a better choice than non-labeled farmed blue mussel (Mytilus edulis), although bivalves, certified or not, has far better environmental performance (Hall et al. 2011). This means that consumers’ blind trust of eco-labels may occasionally hinder a behavioral change towards less demanding species. Finally, and likely of substantial importance, there was a mismatch between motives for purchasing eco- labeled food and criteria for eco-labeled seafood. While the most salient motives for eco-labeled food purchasing were health benefits followed by human and animal welfare issues, sustainability standards for aquaculture and capture fisheries are primarily focusing on environmental performance.

In agreement with much of the literature (e.g. Fraj-Andrés and Martínez- Salinas 2007; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002), this thesis highlights the importance of reducing the cognitive and emotional disconnect to marine ecosystems. In order to increase demand for eco-labeled seafood, people need to get better informed on the environmental consequences of conventional seafood production and on action strategies such as purchasing of eco-labeled seafood. The mismatch between expectations on eco-labeled food and promises from certification of seafood, however, points towards a need to question the degree to which business-to-consumer schemes will drive better production practices of the seafood sector. In case they will, large market actors such as retailers likely have a major role to play by securing a steady supply of sustainable seafood through purchasing policies and perhaps also through consumer choice editing, e.g. by not offering threatened seafood species or providing only eco-labeled seafood (Mitchell 2011). One example of a recent initiative along these lines is the ‘Think fish week’, launched in 2013 in the Netherlands, where retailers together with WWF, ASC and MSC organize a full week dedicated to informing consumers on eco-labeled seafood (ASC 2015). What makes Stockholm, Sweden, particularly interesting as a case is

41 that consumers here are predicted to (from a global and also western market perspective) be relatively prone to green consumption. On these grounds, and given the result from this thesis and earlier work (e.g. Gulbrandsen 2006; Gutierrez and Thornton 2014), it appears that the consumer demand for eco-labeled seafood will continue to be limited and that the sustainable seafood movement needs to use complementary mechanisms to stimulate substantive change.

Objective 5: Suggest improvements of current seafood eco- certification Strengthen formation and implementation of seafood eco-certification standards The results of this thesis suggest that the promises of seafood eco-certification to reduce environmental effects would benefit from including an LCA- perspective, meaning a systems approach on seafood production including all stages from feed and larvae production to retail or restaurants as well as impacts such as global warming potential. This assertion has been supported by earlier work lifting a need to include considerations for carbon footprints (Madin and Macreadie 2015) and a life cycle perspective (Pelletier and Tyedmers 2008; Thrane et al. 2009) in seafood sustainability schemes. Tak- ing this one step further, the recently developed seafood scheme Pescaen- verde includes limits of GHG emissions for fishing fleets of consideration for certification (Vázquez-Rowe et al. 2016).

Seafood certification standards are also expected to benefit from readily available information on eco-system functions in a given location. ES- information of e.g. hydrological conditions, carbon sequestration potential and biodiversity could benefit several stages in the certification procedure, including standard implementation (in e.g. B-EIA) and enforcement (auditing). Readily available ES-information would also enable a better balance between eco-certification standards’ level of prescriptiveness and flexibility. If local ecological conditions are thoroughly examined and potential impacts on key ecosystem services estimated, a more flexible phrasing of standards can be allowed. Most likely, site-specific, adaptable standards would also benefit small-scale producers having difficulties to comply with sustainability standards including strictly phrased thresholds. Instead of getting caught in a long-drawn certification process due to different perceptions of environmental sustainability and conservation, ES-information could facilitate a focus on function rather than threshold values. For instance, ecological information could help overcome disputes on the extent of mangrove forest that should be preserved on a given farm area (e.g. Ha et al. 2012a; Hatanaka 2010) by providing a landscape perspective on preservation and restoration of man-

42 grove ecosystem services. Nonetheless, in order for ES-information to be broadly used in creation and enforcement of standards, it needs to be produced and become accessible for potential users such as producers, consult- ants (e.g. conducting B-EIAs) and certification bodies/auditors.

Ensure that environmental effects are monitored and evaluated This thesis and previous studies (e.g. Blackman and Rivera 2010; Milder et al. 2014; Stokstad 2011; Tlusty and Tausig 2014) pinpoint the need to implement a standardized evaluation procedure of environmental effects of certification. The ISEAL impacts code (ISEAL 2014), requiring that all ISEAL members (including e.g. ASC and MSC) continuously monitor and evaluate effects of sustainability standards, is certainly a step in the right direction. However, although scheme owners are obliged to identify their in- dented long-term effects, predicting environmental effects over time can be difficult given complex linkages between interventions and effects on the landscape level. A key limitation of the monitoring step of the ISEAL code is that the main focus likely will be on capturing changes in production practices, while instead ecological and environmental outcomes (rather than practices), e.g. water and marine habitat quality as well as biodiversity measures (e.g. species, trait or habitat richness), need attention. ES-information could be a valuable mechanism in capturing these potential effects of certification and could help advising how and when data is to be gathered, and by up- scaling local effects to the landscape level through modeling. Systematized monitoring of data relevant for life cycle assessment, for instance required for feed ingredients by the ASC salmon standard (ASC 2012), could also be highly beneficial in the process of implementing standardized evaluation mechanisms for seafood eco-certification programs.

Furthering consumer demand Results from this thesis have highlighted that to improve the environmental leverage of certification, there is need for certification programs to target Asian markets and consumers to a greater extent than presently done (Pa- per I). Focusing on species preferred among Asian consumers, for instance carp, could be one mechanism. Even though recent work has shown that vegetable markets still is the most common location for seafood consumption among the middleclass in Beijing and Shanghai (Fabinyi et al. 2016), retailers and supermarket chains could also have a role to play by introducing eco- certified seafood at large Asian markets such as China, India and Indonesia, particularly if certified fresh seafood options are offered. Results from the consumer oriented work (Paper IV-V) also points towards an increasingly important role of retailers in creating demand for eco-labeled seafood. A minority of respondents in the Stockholm survey recognized and/or understood common seafood eco-labels and since retailers constitute an arena

43 where people are sensitive to new information (Kalnikaitė et al. 2012), grocery stores could possibly function as learning grounds for seafood sustainability. Results also showed that concern for negative environmental impacts is important for strengthening demand for sustainable options and that engaging narratives could contribute with objective knowledge, which is known to spur concern (Brosdahl and Carpenter 2010; Takács-Sánta 2007), and stimulate engagement for marine ecosystems and sustainable seafood.

44 Concluding remarks

Seafood sustainability is in the news. Consumer seafood guides support eco- labeled alternatives (Seafood Watch 2016; WWF 2016) and large corporations (e.g. IKEA and MacDonalds) are committed to sourcing only eco- certified seafood. But what are the environmental effects of voluntary standards, and how can the process of seafood certification be related to a weak/strong sustainability stance?

While other research has showed that certification can be a signal of comparatively well performing fisheries (Gutiérrez et al. 2012) and aquaculture systems (Tlusty and Tausig 2014, Paper II), the results from this thesis lead to a questioning of its current role in improving seafood production systems at large scale. Environmental impacts from seafood production differ substantially between species and production systems (Hall et al. 2011; Troell et al. 2004, Troell et al. in press.; Ziegler et al. 2011). Targeting particularly environmentally demanding commodities such as farmed tropical penaeid shrimp (P. monodon and L. vannamei) and salmon (S. salar) in certification programs is one strategy for improving particularly problematic sectors (Clay 2010). However, it can be argued that eco-labeling of products with an inherently large environmental footprint could, in the worst case, lead to ‘commodity greenwash’, i.e. legitimization of production and consumption of a product group more or less impossible to produce in a truly sustainable manner (adhering to ‘strong sustainability’) to a reasonable market price. Therefore, certification of certain seafood products may occasionally lead to a sustenance of the unsustainable (Buttel 2006). One current example is the reintroduction of ASC-certified tropical shrimp to the Swedish market, where the species group has been absent for years from the Swedish largest retailers due a successful boycott campaign by the largest environmental NGO (SSNC 2011). Some species like bivalves, algae and some herbivorous fish can be produced with limited environmental impacts and in some cases even contribute with key ecosystem services such as absorption of nutrients (Rose et al. 2014; Soto et al. 2008). If certification is to deliver a receipt of truly superior environmental performance, the aim should be to target those seafood products that can be produced in a sustainable manner. In other words, species and production systems that correspond to strong sustainabil-

45 ity, implying maintenance of critical natural capital and associated ecosystem services (Paper I). Furthermore, results from this thesis demonstrate that consumers may prefer eco-labeled but more environmentally demanding alternatives (farmed salmon) before seafood that is superior from an environmental perspective (farmed blue mussels) (Paper V). These results accord well with the reasoning above, denoting that the strategy to focus on eco- certification of particularly problematic commodities can be counterproduc- tive.

Eco-certification can be a valuable tool for rewarding good producers in a given product group and facilitating for consumers interested in making a better choice given that they have already selected which seafood to buy (and not are prone to choose differently). As currently designed, however, certification does not reward truly sustainable production systems in favor of particularly demanding species groups, nor does it help consumers choose the best option from an environmental perspective. Put differently, certification can help identify the best seafood products in each ‘species class’ but not the top ones in the ‘seafood school’. Therefore, in line with Dauvergne and Lister (2012), I suggest that certification programs alone will not be enough to foster endurable change of the seafood sector. Eco-certification may stimulate a ‘kind of turquoise’ development of seafood production and consumption, but is unlikely to alone facilitate an extensive transformation of the aquaculture and fisheries sector towards environmental sustainability. In- stead, other, more conventional policy mechanisms like implementation of existing law and other state regulation will continue to be important. Finally, I would like to acknowledge that this thesis, which consists of a limited set of studies (but reviews a substantial proportion of the work conducted hitherto), does not provide enough evidence on its own to either dismiss or support seafood eco-certification as a sustainability mechanism. Instead, the intention with this final discussion is to stress some major points of concern indicating present limitations of the tool in contributing to a substantial transformation of the seafood sector. These views - which have been raised also by others (Bush et al. 2013a; Jacquet and Pauly 2007; Konefal 2013; Tlusty and Thorsen 2016) - highlight the need for more critical studies on the effectiveness of seafood certification from different perspectives of sustainability.

46 Looking ahead - Future research direction

A relevant area for future research is the potential to implement certification on a landscape level, rather than on individual farms/fisheries. Current limitations of certification in addressing provision of key ecosystem services and biodiversity loss (Paper III) would likely be more easily overcome if the unit of assessment was at a larger spatial scale. A landscape approach on seafood certification has been suggested by others (Micheli et al. 2014), but need to be studied more in depth and if possible with concrete examples for increased understanding of potentials and barriers. In particular ecological effects on such initiatives requires attention. In this vein, landscape labeling integrating certification and payments for ecosystem services (PES) is another approach suggested (Ghazoul et al. 2009). While it has been suggested that eco-certification of the mangrove-integrated shrimp farms studied in Paper II is an example of a certification/PES scheme (Wylie et al. 2016), more well developed market based hybrid instruments that take ecosystem services generated in a given landscape into consideration through integrating for instance PES and eco-certification holds potential and need further investigation. Instruments combining public and private mechanisms also need attention (see Lambin et al. 2014). Besides investigating the landscape approach and hybrid instruments, research focusing on ecological and environmental effects of conventional certification at the farm/fishery level needs continued consideration. More work is required, particularly studies using credible counterfactuals and aims at capturing effects over time.

Most sustainable seafood consumption research has so far focused on understanding the mechanisms for individuals’ choices, but the avenue for change is more likely in the hands of consumers as a collective, having the potential to stimulate change in purchasing policies and ultimately production practices (Niva and Timonen 2001). It therefore seems relevant to go beyond individual consumers and focus on the role of large market actors in driving change. Recent work suggest that demand for eco-certified seafood primarily is driven by large corporate actors through sustainable sourcing policies, rather than from individual consumers (Potts et al. 2016). An important area for future research is consequently identification of key incentives and drivers among large firms - being key actors in the sustainable seafood value chain -

47 to support seafood produced under a voluntary suitability scheme (see also Barclay and Miller 2016). In other words, what are large corporate actors aiming to achieve, and how far on the ‘blue-green’ route are they willing to go.

48 Svensk sammanfattning

Fisk och skaldjur (sjömat) kan i jämförelse med andra animaliska produkter produceras med relativt begränsad miljöpåverkan och förväntas därför bli allt viktigare på en planet med en växande världsbefolkning. För att öka pro- duktionen på ett bärkraftigt sätt måste dock miljöbelastningen från vattenbruk och fiske minska. Miljömärkning är ett relativt nytt verktyg för att för- bättra sjömatsproduktion. Trots att miljöcertifieringsprogram för odlad och vildfångad fisk funnits under mer än två decennier är kunskapen kring i vilken utsträckning verktygen leder till miljöförbättringar begränsad. Konsu- mentens roll när det gäller att driva efterfrågan för miljömärkta alternativ i fiskdisken är också ett förhållandevis obeforskat område. Den här avhandlingen syftar till att minska de identifierade kunskapsluckorna genom att un- dersöka vilken potential certifiering har när det gäller att förbättra sjömats- produktion och stimulera ‘turkos tillväxt’, samt vilka interna (psykologiska) faktorer som är av störst betydelse för att sporra hållbar konsumtion av fisk och skaldjur.

I den första studien undersöktes vilken roll miljöcertifiering skulle kunna spela för att för förbättra den växande vattenbrukssektorn. Resultaten visade att miljöeffekterna på global nivå sannolikt kommer att vara begränsade, exempelvis för att ett flertal i Asien populära vattenbruksarter inte inkluderas i certifieringsprogram, asiatiska marknader och konsumenter utelämnas och för att certifiering inte täcker in alla relevanta miljöeffekter såsom klimatpå- verkan. I studie nummer två studerades miljöpåverkan från certifierade och icke-certifierade mangrove-integrerade räkodlingar i Vietnam och jämfördes med mer intensiva odlingar. Resultaten indikerade ingen väsentlig skillnad mellan certifierade och icke-certifierade odlingar, men högre utsläpp av växthusgaser för mangroveintegrerade odlingar i jämförelse med mer intensiva produktionssystem till följd av omfattande mangroveavskogning för att producera relativt lite räkor. Resultaten från studie nummer tre visade att kunskapen kring ekologiska effekter av miljöcertifiering av fick och skaldjur är begränsad. Platsspecifik ekologisk kunskap (ES-information) om t.ex. viktiga ekosystemtjänster och biologisk mångfald inom ett visst område föreslås ha potential att förbättra reglerna för certifiering samt underlätta implementering av standards. I studie fyra och fem undersöktes vilka psykologiska

49 mekanismer som är viktiga för att svenska konsumenter ska efterfråga miljö- märkt sjömat. Två faktorer, oro för negativa miljöeffekter från vattenbruk och fiske samt medvetenhet om miljömärkningar för fisk och skaldjur var de mest effektiva när det gäller att förutse hållbar sjömatskonsumtion. Därtill visade resultaten att konsumenters förväntningar på miljömärkt mat i all- mänhet inte överensstämmer med krav som ställs på miljömärkt sjömat, något som ytterligare förväntas begränsa efterfrågan för hållbara alternativ.

Med utgångspunkt från resultaten ovan föreslås ett antal områden där miljö- certifiering av fisk och skaldjur skulle kunna förbättras. För det första, inkludera ett livscykelperspektiv vid utformning och implementering av certifie- ringsstandards och förmedla lättillgänglig ES-information till berörda aktö- rer. För det andra, standardisera kontinuerlig utvärdering av certifierade producenter för att kunna spåra potentiella miljöförbättringar över tid. Och slutligen, stimulera efterfrågan genom att inkludera asiatiska konsumenter och marknader i högre utsträckning samt stärk konsumenters medvetenhet kring miljömärkningar för fisk och skaldjur och känslomässiga engagemang för marina ekosystem. Även om resultaten från den här avhandlingen visar på vissa begränsningar med miljöcertifiering som verktyg är det viktigt att framhålla att ett flertal tidigare genomförda studier visat på positiva effekter av miljöcertifiering av fiske och vattenbruk. Rekommendationen till konsumenter är därför att fortsätta efterfråga miljömärkt sjömat, samt i den mån det är möjligt, eventuellt begränsa sitt intag av fisk samt välja arter med liten miljöpåverkan.

50 Thank you

Sustainability can be seen as a journey rather than a set goal – and so can PhD studies. This expedition has certainly been more pleasant, stimulating and fun with so many people accompanying and inspiring me. Thank you to all of you, you know who you are.

First and foremost I would like to thank my main supervisor Patrik Rönnbäck as well as my co-supervisor Max Troell for their guidance and support during these years. Patrik, I’ve left every single meeting with you feeling more inspired and motivated than before. Not far from “den optimala kicken”... Max, thank you for all good conversations, coffees at Beijer and your great sense of humor. To both of you, for all stimulating and intellectu- ally challenging discussions, for your openness to new research areas, for letting me try my wings, all the laughs and for always being there when I needed it the most. Again - a big thank you!

I would also like to thank Nils Kautsky for being an extraordinary source of positive energy and inspiration. A special thank you to Beatrice Crona who has been my extra supervisor and guide in the consumer oriented work. While social science and in particular qualitative methodology has been a brand new and sometimes bumpy road for me, I’ve always felt encouraged by having you around. Thank you also Patrik Henriksson, my coauthor and LCA-guru. Always generous with your time and good advice. Especially if cinnamon buns are offered. Johan Eklöf for inspiring conversations and for providing great comments improving the quality of the kappa and the unpublished manuscripts. The layout of the kappa was inspired by the thesis of Hampus Eriksson – thank you for all good chats and inspiration over the years. WorldFish Center in Malaysia for welcoming me as a guest researcher during my first year, and in particular Michael Phillips for stimulating discussions and sharing your knowledge on Asian aquaculture. My master thesis student Kelsey Brown, for taking on the venture of interdisciplinary work and indirectly improving my supervision skills. I am also deeply thankful for the contributions from all respondents in Vietnam and Sweden to the empirical work of this thesis.

51 I would also like to thank all colleagues and PhD students at my four more or less formal affiliations; Campus Gotland, Department of Ecology, Environ- ment and Plant Sciences (old Systems Ecology), NRHU Uppsala University and the Stockholm Resilience Center. Thank you all for always making me feel welcome, appreciated and ‘part of the team’ even though I’ve been away for long periods. You are too many to mention individually, but you know who you are. Thank you, you are the best! Being a migratory bird for most of this time, commuting between Stockholm and Visby (and in addition Ma- laysia and Vietnam…), I am grateful to my family and friends in Stockholm who have stayed around and to new friends in Visby. I would also like to express my gratitude to Gotland and Visby, to the ocean, picturesque alleys in Visby and the, in stressful periods much needed, peaceful Botanical gar- den. Thank you to Destination Gotland for providing plenty “of the grid” working slots with a sea view.

My mother and father and my little brother Magnus – thank you for endless support no matter what, and for at an early age stimulating my interest for nature and travels. I will be forever grateful for that.

And finally, to Jesper. Thank you for everything. Words will not be enough to express what it has meant for me to have you by my side during these years. Thank you for always being so amazingly supportive (even when I’ve been away on a remote island for five days a week or buried in work…), for all the excellent feedback on my papers, for carrying the extra burden at home during intense months of thesis writing and for all generosity and love.

This work was supported by Sida (the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency), the Swedish Research Council VR (proj. no. SWE- 2011-38).

52 References

Agnew, D., Gutiérrez, N. L., Stern-Pirlot, A., & Hoggarth, D. D. (2013a). The MSC experience: developing an operational certification standard and a market incentive to improve fishery sustainability. ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fst091 Agnew, D. J., Gutiérrez, N. L., Stern-Pirlot, A., Smith, A. D. M., Zimmermann, C., & Sainsbury, K. (2013b). Rebuttal to Froese and Proelss “Evaluation and legal assessment of certified seafood.” Marine Policy, 38, 551–553. ASC. (2012). ASC Salmon Standard, (Version 1.0 June 2012), pp. 103. ASC. (2014). ASC Shrimp Standard, (Version 1.0 March 2014), pp. 145. ASC. (2015). Dutch retailers promote certified seafood for Think Fish Week. Available online: http://www.asc-aqua.org/index.cfm?act=update.detail&uid=341&lng=1 (accessed on 10 July 2016). ASC. (2016). ASC’s journey to 200 certified farms. Available online: http://www.asc- aqua.org/index.cfm?act=update.detail&uid=370&lng=1&utm_source=ASC+We bsite+subscribers&utm_campaign=071747e88f- ASC_eNewsletter_January_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c75918bcd e-071747e88f-40652357 (accessed on 20 July 2016). Auld, G. (2014). Constructing Private Governance. The rise and evolution of forest, coffee and fisheries certification. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Auld, G., & Cashore, B. (2013). Mixed signals: NGO campaigns and non-state market driven (NSMD) governance in an export-oriented country. Canadian Public Policy- Analyse de Politiques, Supplement/Numéro Spécial 2 2013. Bamberg, S. (2003). How Does Environmental Concern Influence Specific Environmentally Related Behaviors ? A New Answer to an Old Question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 21–32. Barclay, K., & Miller, A. (2016). The sustainable seafood movement is a governance concert, with the audience playing a key role. In: Presentation at the IIFET conference, 2016 July, Aberdeen, Scotland. Baumann, H., & Tillman, A.-M. (2004). The hitch hiker´s guide to LCA. USA: Studentlitteratur AB. Baumgartner, U., & Nguyen, T. H. (2016). Organic certification for shrimp value chains in Ca Mau, Vietnam: a means for improvement or an end in itself? Environment, Development and Sustainability. doi:10.1007/s10668-016-9781-z Belton, B., Haque, M. M., Little, C. D., & Sinh, L. X. (2011). Certifying catfish in Vietnam and Bangladesh: Who will make the grade and will it matter? Food Policy, 36(2), 289–299. Belton, B., Murray, F., Young, J., Telfer, T., & Little, C. D. (2010). Passing the Panda Standard: A TAD Off the Mark? Ambio, 39(1), 2–13.

53 Béné, C. (2005). The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Discourse, Policy Controversies and the Role of Science in the Politics of Shrimp Farming Development. Development Policy Review, 23(5), 585–614. Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino, G., Hemre, G.- I., & Williams, M. (2015). Feeding 9 billion by 2050 - Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security, 7(2), 261–274. Bergleiter, S. (2008). Organic aquaculture. In H. Willer, M. Yussefi-Menzler, & N. Sorensen (Eds.), The world of organic agriculture: Statistics and emerging trends 2008 (pp. 83–88). Frick, Switzerland: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Bonn, Germany and Reserach Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL). Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. New York: Cambridge University Press. Beveridge, M. C. ., Ross, L. G., & Kelly, L. A. (1994). Aquaculture and biodiversity. Ambio, 23(8), 497–502. Beveridge, M. C. M., Thilsted, S. H., Phillips, M. J., Metian, M., Troell, M., & Hall, S. J. (2013). Meeting the food and nutrition needs of the poor: the role of fish and the opportunities and challenges emerging from the rise of aquaculture. Journal of Fish Biology, 83(4), 1067–1084. Blackman, A., & Rivera, J. (2010). The Evidence Base for Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts of “Sustainable” Certification. RFF Discuss. Pap., Resour. Futur.,Washington, DC. Bondad-Reantaso, M. G., Bueno, P. B., Demaine, H., & Pongthanapanich, T. (2009). Development of an indicator system for measuring the contribution of small-scale aquaculture to sustainable rural development. In M. G. Bondad-Reantaso & M. Prein (Eds.), Measuring the contribution of small-scale aquaculture: an assessment. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 534. 2009. (pp. 161–179). Rome: FAO. Bosma, R. H., Nguyen, T. H., Siahainenia, A. J., Tran, H. T. P., & Tran, H. N. (2014). Shrimp-based livelihoods in mangrove silvo-aquaculture farming systems. Reviews in Aquaculture, 6, 1–8. Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An Exploratory Study into the Factors Impeding Ethical Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597–608. Brécard, D., Hlaimi, B., Lucas, S., Perraudeau, Y., & Salladarré, F. (2009). Determinants of demand for green products: An application to eco-label demand for fish in Europe. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 115–125. Bridson, P. (2013). Seafood Watch, Selva Shrimp report. Available online: http://www.seafoodwatch.org/- /m/sfw/pdf/reports/s/mba_seafoodwatch_selvablacktigershrimpreport.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2016). Brosdahl, D. J. C., & Carpenter, J. M. (2010). Consumer Knowledge of the Environmental Impacts of Textile and Apparel Production, Concern for the Environment, and Environmentally Friendly Consumption Behavior. JTATM, 6(4), 1–9. Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(2), 261–304.

54 Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R., & Huyvaert, K. P. (2011). AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 23–35. Bush, S. R., van Zwieten, P. A. M., Visser, L., Van Dijk, H., Bosma, R. H., De Boer, W. F., & Verdegem, M. (2010). Scenarios for Resilient Shrimp Aquaculture in Tropical Coastal Areas. Ecology and Society, 15. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/ES-2009-3331.pdf Bush, S., Belton, B., Hall, D., Vandergeest, P., Murray, F. J., Ponte, S., … Kusumawati, R. (2013a). Certify Sustainable Aquaculture? Science, 341, 1067–1068. Bush, S. R., Toonen, H., Oosterveer, P., & Mol, A. P. J. (2013b). The “devils triangle” of MSC certification: Balancing credibility, accessibility and continuous improvement. Marine Policy, 37, 288–293. Bush, S. R., Oosterveer, P., Bailey, M., & Mol, A. P. J. (2014). Sustainability governance of chains and networks: a review and future outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 8-19. Bush, S., & Oosterveer, P. (2015). Vertically Differentiating Environmental Standards: The Case of the Marine Stewardship Council. Sustainability, 7, 1861–1883. Buttel, F. H. (2006). Sustaining the Unsustainable : Agro-Food Systems and Environment in the Modern World. In T. Marsden & P. Mooney (Eds.), The Handbook of Rural Studies. (pp. 213–229). London, UK: SAGE Publications. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., & González, A. (2009). Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89, 1704S–1709S. Carpenter, S. R., & Folke, C. (2006). Ecology for transformation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21(6), 309–315. Cederberg, C., Persson, U. M., Neovius, K., Molander, S., & Clift, R. (2011). Including carbon emissions from deforestation in the carbon footprint of Brazilian beef. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(5), 1773–1779. Clay, J. (2010). How big brands can help save biodiversity. Available online: http://blog.ted.com/2010/08/16/how-big-brands- can-save-biodiversity-jason- clay-on-ted-com/ (accessed on 14 April 2016). Clough, B., Tuan, V. A., Lu, T., Johnston, D., Phillips, M., & Chanratchakool, P. (2004). Mixed shrimp-mangrove farming practices. A manual for extension workers. ACIAR-MOFI Project FIS/94/12. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research., pp. 51. Crona, B. I., Daw, T. M., Swartz, W., Norström, A. V, Nyström, M., Thyresson, M., … Troell, M. (2015). Masked, diluted and drowned out: how global seafood trade weakens signals from marine ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries, doi: 10.1111/faf.12109 Dauvergne, P., & Lister, J. (2012). Big brand sustainability: Governance prospects and environmental limits. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 36–45. De Baan, L., Alkemade, R., & Koellner, T. (2013). Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: A global approach. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1216–1230. Deutsch, L., Jansson, Å., Troell, M., Rönnbäck, P., Folke, C., & Kautsky, N. (2000). The “ecological footprint”: communicating human dependence on nature’s work. Ecological Economics, 32, 351–355.

55 Deutsch, L., Graslund, S., Folke, C., Troell, M., Huitric, M., Kautsky, N., & Lebel, L. (2007). Feeding aquaculture growth through globalization: Exploitation of marine ecosystems for fishmeal. Global Environmental Change, 17(2), 238–249. Deutsch, L., Troell, M., Limburg, K., & Huitric, M. (2011). Global trade of fisheries products: Implications for marine ecosystems and their services. In T. Koellner Ed., Ecosystem Services and Global Trade of Natural Resources: Ecology, Economics and Policies. (pp. 120–147). London: Routledge. Donato, D. C., Kauffman, J. B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M., & Kanninen, M. (2011). Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience, 4(5), 293–297. Eakin, H., Winkels, A., & Sendzimir, J. (2009). Nested vulnerability: exploring cross-scale linkages and vulnerability teleconnections in Mexican and Vietnamese coffee systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(4), 398–412. Edwards, P. (2015). Aquaculture environment interactions: Past, present and likely future trends. Aquaculture, 447, 2–14. Ekoweb Sverige. (2014). Ekologisk livsmedelsmarknad. Rapport om den ekologiska branschen sammanställd av Ekoweb.nu 29 januari 2015. Available online: http://www.ekoweb.nu/attachments/67/27.pdf, pp. 33. (accessed on 12 April 2016). Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Makov, T., & Milo, R. (2014). Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.1402183111 EU. (2015). EU Life Cycle Assessment. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/smart- regulation/guidelines/tool_58_en.htm (accessed on 11 July 2016). Fabinyi, M., Liu, N., Song, Q., & Li, R. (2016). Aquatic product consumption patterns and perceptions among the Chinese middle class. Regional Studies in Marine Science. 7, 1-9. FAO. (2009). The state of food and agriculture: Livestock in balance. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, ISBN 978-92-5-106215-9 Rome 2009. pp. 166. FAO. (2014). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2014. pp. 223. Fischer, C., Aguilar, F., Jawahar, P., & Sedjo, R. (2005). Forest Certification : Toward Common Standards. RFF Discuss. Pap. 05-10, Resour. Futur.,Washington, DC. Folke, C. (1991). Socio-Economic Dependence on the Life-Supporting Environment. In C. Folke T. Kåberger (Ed.), Linking the natural environment and the economy: Essays from the Eco-Eco Group. Kluwer Academic Publishers, (pp. 77-95). Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Folke, C., Kautsky, N., Berg, H., Jansson, Å., & Troell, M. (1998). The Ecological Footprint Concept for Sustainable Seafood Production: A Review. Ecological Applications, 8(1), S63–S71Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., … Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.

56 Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., … Westley, F. (2011). Reconnecting to the Biosphere. Ambio, 40(7), 719–738. Fraj-Andrés, E., & Martínez-Salinas, E. (2007). Impact of Environmental Knowledge on Ecological Consumer Behaviour. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 19(3), 73–102. Frewer, L. J., Kole, A., van de Kroon, S. M. A., & de Lauwere, C. (2005). Consumer Attitudes Towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(4), 345–367. Froese, R., & Proelss, A. (2012). Evaluation and legal assessment of certified seafood. Marine Policy, 36(6), 1284–1289. Froese, R., & Proelss, A. (2013). Is a stock overfished if it is depleted by overfishing? A response to the rebuttal of Agnew et al. to Froese and Proelss “Evaluation and legal assessment of certified seafood.” Marine Policy, 38, 548–550. Garnett, T. (2013). Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 72(1), 29–39. Garnett, T., Mathewson, S., Angelides, P., & Borthwick, F. (2015). Policies and actions to shift eating patterns: What works? Food and Climate Research Network, pp. 85. Ghazoul, J., Garcia, C., & Kushalappa, C. G. (2009). A concept for next-generation payment for ecosystem service schemes. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 1889– 1895. Gräslund, S., Holmström, K., & Wahlström, A. (2003). A field survey of chemicals and biological products used in shrimp farming. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46(1), 81–90. Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177–189. Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2006). Creating markets for eco-labelling: are consumers insignificant? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(5), 477–489. Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2009). The emergence and effectiveness of the Marine Stewardship Council. Marine Policy, 33(4), 654–660. Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2014). Dynamic governance interactions: Evolutionary effects of state responses to non-state certification programs. Regulation and Governance, 8(1), 74–92. Gutierrez, A., & Thornton, T. (2014). Can Consumers Understand Sustainability through Seafood Eco-Labels? A U.S. and UK Case Study. Sustainability, 6(11), 8195–8217. Gutiérrez, N. L., Valencia, S. R., Branch, T. a., Agnew, D. J., Baum, J. K., Bianchi, P. L., … Williams, N. E. (2012). Eco-Label Conveys Reliable Information on Fish Stock Health to Seafood Consumers. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e43765. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043765 Ha, T. T. T., Bush, S. R., Mol, A. P. J., & van Dijk, H. (2012a). Organic coasts? Regulatory challenges of certifying integrated shrimp–mangrove production systems in Vietnam. Journal of Rural Studies, 28(2), 631-639 Ha, T. T. T., van Dijk, H., & Bush, S. R. (2012b). Mangrove conservation or shrimp farmer’s livelihood? The devolution of forest management and benefit sharing in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Ocean & Coastal Management, 69, 185–193. Hall, S. J., Delaporte, A., Phillips, M. J., Beveridge, M., & O´Keefe, M. (2011). Blue frontiers: Managing the Environmental Cost of Aquaculture. The WorldFish center, Penang, Malaysia, pp. 94.

57 Hatanaka, M. (2009). Certification, Partnership, and Morality in an Organic Shrimp Network: Rethinking Transnational Alternative Agrifood Networks. World Development, 38(5), 706–716. Hatanaka, M. (2010). Governing sustainability: examining audits and compliance in a third-party-certified organic shrimp farming project in rural Indonesia. Local Environment, 15(3), 233–244. Havice, E., & Iles, A. (2015). Shaping the aquaculture sustainability assemblage: Revealing the rule-making behind the rules. Geoforum, 58, 27–37. Henriksson, P. J. G., Guinée, J. B., Kleijn, R., & De Snoo, G. R. (2012). Life cycle assessment of aquaculture systems-A review of methodologies. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(3), 304–313. Henriksson, P. J. G., Zhang, W., Nahid, S. A. A., Newton, R., Phan, L. T., Dao, H. M., … Guinée, J. B. (2014a). Final LCA case study report - Results of LCA studies of Asian Aquaculture Systems for Tilapia, Catfish, Shrimp, and Freshwater prawn. SEAT Deliverable D3.5. Leiden, Netherlands, pp. 105. Henriksson, P. J. G., Guinée, J. B., Heijungs, R., Koning, A., & Green, D. M. (2014b). A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data—including estimates for uncertainty. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19, 429–436. Heupel, E., & Auster, P. J. (2013). Eco-labeling seafood: Addressing impacts to vulnerable seafloor species, communities, habitats and ecosystems in data-poor regions. Marine Policy, 38, 8–15. Hicks, R. L., & Schnier, K. E. (2008). Eco-labeling and dolphin avoidance: A dynamic model of tuna fishing in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56(2), 103–116. Honkanen, P., & Olsen, S. O. (2009). Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice: The case of farmed fish. British Food Journal, 111(3), 293–309. IKEA. (2015). A responsible catch. Available online: http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_MY/pdf/ASC_MSC_backgrounder_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2016). ISEAL. (2014). ISEAL impacts code. Available online: http://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/files/ISEAL_Impacts_Code_v2_Dec_ 2014.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2016). Islam, M. S. (2014). Confronting the Blue Revolution: Industrial Aqusculture and Sustainability in the Global South. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISO. (2006). International Standard ISO14044, Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines, 2006. pp. 46. IUCN. (2016). Mangroves & Markets final workshop. Available online: http://www.iucn.org/content/mangroves-markets-final-workshop-results-and- lessons-learned (accessed on 16 May 2016). Jackson, J. B., Kirby, M. X., Berger, W. H., Bjorndal, K. a, Botsford, L. W., Bourque, B. J., … Warner, R. R. (2001). Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293(5530), 629–37. Jacquet, J., & Pauly, D. (2007). The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries. Marine Policy, 31(3), 308–313. Jacquet, J., & Pauly, D. (2008). Funding priorities: big barriers to small-scale fisheries. Conservation Biology, 22(4), 832–835.

58 Jacquet, J., Hocevar, J., Lai, S., Majluf, P., Pelletier, N., Pitcher, T., … Pauly, D. (2009). Conserving wild fish in a sea of market-based efforts. Oryx, 44(01), 45–56. Joffre, O. M., Bosma, R. H., Bregt, A. K., van Zwieten, P. A. M., Bush, S. R., & Verreth, J. A. J. (2015). What drives the adoption of integrated shrimp mangrove aquaculture in Vietnam? Ocean & Coastal Management, 114, 53–63. Johnston, R. J., Wessells, C. R., Donath, H., & Asche, F. (2001). Measuring Consumer Preferences for Ecolabeled Seafood : An International Comparison. Journalof Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26(1), 20–39. Jonell, M., Phillips, M., Rönnbäck, P., & Troell, M. (2013). Eco-certification of Farmed Seafood: Will it Make a Difference? Ambio, 42(6), 659–74. Jonell, M., & Henriksson, P. J. G. (2015). Mangrove-shrimp farms in Vietnam – comparing organic and conventional systems using life cycle assessment. Aquaculture. 447, 66-75. Kaiser, M. J., & Hill, L. (2010). Marine stewardship: a force for good. Nature, 467(7315), 531. Kalnikaitė, V., Bird, J., & Rogers, Y. (2012). Decision-making in the aisles: informing, overwhelming or nudging supermarket shoppers? Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(6), 1247–1259. Kareiva, P. M., McNally, B. W., McCormick, S., Miller, T., & Ruckelshaus, M. (2015). Improving global environmental management with standard corporate reporting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7375-7382. Karlsen, K. M., Hermansen, Ø., & Dreyer, B. M. (2012). Eco-labeling of seafood: Does it affect the harvesting patterns of Norwegian fishermen? Marine Policy, 36(5), 1123– 1130. Kautsky, N., Berg, H., Folke, C., Larsson, J., & Troell, M. (1997). Ecological footprint for assessment of resource use and development limitations in shrimp and tilapia aquaculture. Aquaculture Research, 28(10), 753–766. Khiem, N.T, Bush, S.R., Chau, N.M., & Loc, V.T.T. (2010). Upgrading small-holders in the Vietnamese Pangasius value chain. Final Report, ODI Grant Number RO334, An Giang University, Wageningen University and Can Tho University, pp. 142. Klinger, D., & Naylor, R. (2012). Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 247–276. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. Konefal, J. (2013). Environmental Movements, Market-Based Approaches, and Neoliberalization: A Case Study of the Sustainable Seafood Movement. Organization & Environment, 26(3), 336–352. Krkošek, M., Ford, J. ., Morton, A., Lele, S., Myers, R. A., & Lewis, M. A. (2007). Declining wild salmon populations in relation to parasites from farm salmon. Science, 318, 1772–1775. Krystallis, A., de Barcellos, M. D., Kügler, J. O., Verbeke, W., & Grunert, K. G. (2009). Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livestock Science, 126(1-3), 46–56. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews. learning the craft of qualitative research Interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

59 Lambin, E. F., Meyfroidt, P., Rueda, X., Blackman, A., Börner, J., Cerutti, P. O., … Wunder, S. (2014). Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Global Environmental Change, 28, 129–140. Lee, D. (2008). Aquaculture Certification. In T. Ward & B. Phillips (Eds.), Seafood Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice (pp. 106–133). Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell. Loomis, J. B. (2011). What’s to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies? Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(2), 363–370. Madin, E. M. P., & Macreadie, P. I. (2015). Incorporating carbon footprints into seafood sustainability certification and eco-labels. Marine Policy, 57, 178–181. Martin, S. M., Cambridge, T. A., Grieve, C., Nimmo, F. M., & Agnew, D. J. (2012). An Evaluation of Environmental Changes Within Fisheries Involved in the Marine Stewardship Council Certification Scheme. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 20(2), 61–69. Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M., & Watson, J. E. . (2016). The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature, 536. 143-145 McCauley, D. J., Pinsky, M. L., Palumbi, S. R., Estes, J. A., Joyce, F. H., & Warner, R. R. (2015). Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science, 347(6219), 247–254. McDonald’s. (2013). McDonald’s pledge to source MSC labeled seafood. Available online: https://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/mcdonalds-usa-first-restaurant- chain-to-serve-msc-certified-sustainable-fish-nationwide (accessed on 3 April 2016). Micheli, F., De Leo, G., Shester, G. G., Martone, R. G., Lluch-Cota, S. E., Butner, C., … Sáenz-Arroyo, A. (2014). A system-wide approach to supporting improvements in seafood production practices and outcomes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, doi:10.1890/110257 Milder, J. C., Arbuthnot, M., Blackman, A., Brooks, S. E., Giovannucci, D., Gross, L., … Zrust, M. (2014). An agenda for assessing and improving conservation impacts of sustainability standards in tropical agriculture. Conservation Biology, 29(2), 309- 320. Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(8), 430–434. Mitchell, M. (2011). Increasing fish consumption for better health - are we being advised to eat more of an inherently unsustainable protein? Nutrition Bulletin, 36, 438–442. Moberg, F., & Rönnbäck, P. (2003). Ecosystem services of the tropical seascape: interactions, substitutions and restoration. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46, 27–46. MSC. (2014a). Global Impacts Report 2014. London, UK. pp. 44. MSC. (2014b). MSC Fisheries Standard and Guidance. (Extracted from the Fisheries Certification Requirements, Annexes SA-SD), Version 2.0, 1st October, 2014. pp. 314. MSC. (2016a). MSC Australian Western rock lobster. Available online: https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south- atlantic-indian-ocean/western-australia-rock-lobster/western-australia-rock-lobster (accessed on 2 August 2016). MSC. (2016b). Rio 2016 Olympic Games. Available online: https://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/rio-2016-to-support-msc-and-asc- certified-seafood (accessed on 10 August 2016).

60 Naturvetarna. (2012). Duellen: Kan vi äta certifierade jätteräkor med gott samvete? Available online: http://www.naturvetarna.se/Om- oss/Medlemsartiklar/DUELLEN-Kan-vi-ata-certifierade-jatterakor-med-gott- samvete/ (accessed on July 7 2016). Naylor, R. L., Goldburg, R. J., Primavera, J. H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M. C., Clay, J., … Troell, M. (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature, 405(6790), 1017–1024. Naylor, R. L., Hardy, R. W., Bureau, D. P., Chiu, A., Elliott, M., Farrell, A. P., … Nichols, P. D. (2009). Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(36), 15103–15110. Nichols, A. L., & Edlund, J. E. (2015). Practicing what we preach (and sometimes study): Methodological issues in experimental laboratory research. Review of General Psychology, 19(2), 191–202. Niva, M., & Timonen, P. (2001). The role of consumers in product‐oriented environmental policy: can the consumer be the driving force for environmental improvements? International Journal of Consumer Studies.25, 331-338 Noss, R. F. (1990). Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity : A Hierarchical Approach. Conservation Biology, 4(4), 355–364. Nyström, M., Norström, A. V., Blenckner, T., de la Torre-Castro, M., Eklöf, J. S., Folke, C., … Troell, M. (2012). Confronting Feedbacks of Degraded Marine Ecosystems. Ecosystems, 15, 695–710. Österblom, H., Jouffray, J-B., Folke, C., Crona, B., Troell, M., Merrie, A., & Rockström, J. (2015). Transnational corporations as “keystone actors” in marine ecosystems. PloS One, 10(5), e0127533. Österblom, H., Crona, B. I., Folke, C., Nyström, M., & Troell, M. (2016). Marine Ecosystem Science on an Intertwined Planet. Ecosystems, DOI: 10.1007/s10021- 016-9998-6 Othoniel, B., Rugani, B., Heijungs, R., Benetto, E., & Withagen, C. (2015). Assessment of life cycle impacts on ecosystem services: promise, problems and prospects. Environmental Science & Technology, 50, 1077-1092 Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., & Torres, F. (1998). Fishing down marine food webs. Science, 279(5352), 860-863 Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Pitcher, T. J., Sumaila, U. R., Walters, C. J., … Zeller, D. (2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature, 418(6898), 689– 695. Peattie, K. (2010). Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 195–228. Pelletier, N., & Tyedmers, P. (2008). Life cycle considerations for improving sustainability assessments in seafood awareness campaigns. Environmental Management, 42(5), 918–931. Pieniak, Z., Aertsens, J., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Subjective and objective knowledge as determinants of organic vegetables consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 581–588. Pieniak, Z., Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Consumer knowledge and use of information about fish and aquaculture. Food Policy, 40, 25–30.

61 Potts, J., Lynch, M., Wilkings, A., Huppe, G., Cunningham, M., & Voora, V. (2014). The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2014, Standards and the Green Economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), pp. 332. Potts, J., Wilkings, A., Lynch, M., & MacFatridge, S. (2016). State of Sustainability Initiatives Review: Standards and the blue economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), pp. 207. Primavera, J. (1991). Intensive prawn farming in the Philippines: Ecological, social, and economic implications. Ambio, 20(1), 28–33. Primavera, J. (2000). Development and conservation institutional of Philippine issues mangroves : Ecological Economics, 35, 91–106. Reisch, L., Eberle, U., & Lorek, S. (2013). Sustainable food consumption: an overview of contemporary issues and policies, Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 9(2), 7–25. Repko, A. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: Process and Theory. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Rizos, E. C., Ntzani, E. E., Bika, E., Kostapanos, M. S., & Elisaf, M. S. (2012). Association Between Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Disease Events. JAMA, 308(10), 1024–1033. Roheim, C. A. (2009). Thalassorama An Evaluation of Sustainable Seafood Guides : Implications for Environmental Groups and the Seafood Industry, Marine Resource Economics 24, 301–310. Roheim, C. A., Sudhakaran, P. O., & Durham, C. A. (2012). Certification of Shrimp and Salmon for Best Aquaculture Practices: Assessing Consumer Preferences in Rhode Island. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 16(3), 266–286. Rönnbäck, P. (1999). The ecological basis for economic value of seafood production supported by mangrove ecosystems. Ecological Economics, 29(2), 235–252. Rose, J., Bricker, S., Tedesco, M. A, & Wikfors, G. (2014). A role for shellfish aquaculture in coastal nitrogen management. Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 2519-2525. Rothkopf, D. (2012). Inside Power, Inc.Taking stock of Big Business vs. Big Government. Foreignpolicy.com, Available online: http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/27/inside- power-inc/ (accessed on 10 August 2016). Sampson, B. G. S., Sanchirico, J. N., Roheim, C. A., Bush, S. R., Taylor, J. E., Allison, E. H., … Wilson, J. R. (2015). Secure sustainable seafood from developing countries. Science, 348(6234), 504–506. Seafood Watch. (2016). Seafood Watch on eco-certification. Available online: http://www.seafoodwatch.org/seafood-recommendations/eco-certification (accessed on 30 March 2016). Selden, R. L., Valencia, S. R., Larsen, A. E., Cornejo-Donoso, J., & Wasserman, A. A. (2016). Evaluating seafood eco-labeling as a mechanism to reduce collateral impacts of fisheries in an ecosystem-based fisheries management context. Marine Policy, 64, 102–115. Seyfang, G. (2005). Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote Ecological Citizenship? Environmental Politics, 14(2), 290–306. Smith, M. D., Roheim, C. A., Crowder, L. B., Halpern, B. S., Turnipseed, M., Anderson, J. L., … Selkoe, K. A. (2010). Sustainability and Global Seafood. Science, 327, 784–786.

62 Sokolova, T. (2013). Achieving integration in interdisciplinary research: Strategy or emergence? A case study of interdisciplinary research in Sweden. Master Thesis, Uppsala University. Available online: http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:600859/FULLTEXT01.pdf Soto, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Bermudez, J., Brugère, C., Angel, D., Bailey, C., … Wainberg, A. (2008). Applying an ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture: principles, scales and some management measures. In D. Soto, J. AguilarManjarrez, and N. Hishamunda Eds. Building an Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture., FAO/Universitat de les Illes Balears Experts Workshop, 7–11 May 2007, Mallorca, Spain. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings. No. 14. Rome: FAO (2008), pp 221. Souza, D. M., Teixeira, R. F. M., & Ostermann, O. P. (2015). Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with Life Cycle Assessment: Are we there yet? Global Change Biology, 21, 32–47. Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-Identity and the Theory of Planned Behavior: Assesing the Role of Identification with“Green Consumerism”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 388–399. SSNC. (2011). Keep tiger prawns off your plate - SSNC. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riIn4RSwYGE (accessed on 17 May 2016). SSNC. (2015). Problemen med de ASC-märkta jätteräkorna. Available online: http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/nyheter/problemen-med-de-asc-markta- jatterakorna (accessed on 17 May 2016). Stern, P., & Dietz, T. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Reserach in Human Ecology, 6(2), 81–97. Stokstad, E. (2011). Seafood Eco-Label Grapples With Challenge of Proving Its Impact. Science, 334, 746. Stratoudakis, Y., McConney, P., Duncan, J., Gitonga, N., Ghofar, A., Gitonga, N., … Bourillon, L. (2016). Fisheries certification in the developing world: locks and keys or sqaure pegs in round holes. Fisheries Research, 182, 39-49. Subasinghe, R., & Phillips, M. (2007). Aquaculture certification: a challenge for the small farmer? FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, 38, 34–36. Symonds, M. R. E., & Moussalli, A. (2010). A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 13–21. Tacon, A. G. J., & Metian, M. (2009). Fishing for Aquaculture: Non-Food Use of Small Pelagic Forage Fish—A Global Perspective. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 17(3), 305– 317. Takács-Sánta, A. (2007). Barriers to environmental concern. Reserach in Human Ecology, 14(1), 26–38. The Economist. (2003). The promise of a blue revolution. Available online: http://www.economist.com/node/1974103 (accessed on 16 April 2016). Thilsted, H. S., Thorne-lyman, A., Webb, P., Bogard, J. R., Subasinghe, R., Philips, M. J., & Allison E. H. (2016). Sustaining healthy diets: The role of capture fisheries and aquaculture for improving nutrition in the post-2015 era. Food Policy, 61, 126– 131. Thrane, M., Ziegler, F., & Sonesson, U. (2009). Eco-labelling of wild-caught seafood products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 416–423.

63 Tlusty, M. F. (2012). Environmental improvement of seafood through certification and ecolabelling: theory and analysis. Fish and Fisheries, 13, 1–13. Tlusty, M. F., & Tausig, H. (2014). Reviewing GAA-BAP shrimp farm data to determine whether certification lessens environmental impacts. Reviews in Aquaculture, (5), 1– 10. Tlusty, M. F., & Thorsen, Ø. (2016). Claiming seafood is “sustainable” risks limiting improvements. Fish and Fisheries, 1–7. doi: 10.1111/faf.12170 Troell, M., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M., Henriksson, P., Primavera, J. H., Rönnbäck, P., … Jonell, M. (In Press). Aquaculture. In Reference Module in Life Sciences, Elsevier, 2017, ISBN 9780128096338. Troell, M., Tyedmers, P., Kautsky, N., & Rönnbäck, P. (2004). Aquaculture and Energy Use. In C. Cleveland Ed. Encyclopedia of energy, Vol. 1, (pp 97-108). Oxford: Elsevier. Troell, M., Naylor, R. L., Metian, M., Beveridge, M., Tyedmers, P. H., Folke, C., … de Zeeuw, A. (2014). Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(37), 13257–13263. Turaga, R. M. R., Howarth, R. B., & Borsuk, M. E. (2010). Pro-environmental behavior: Rational choice meets moral motivation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185, 211–224. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social affairs. (2015). World Population Prospects. The 2015 revision.Key Findings and Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241, (1), pp. 59. Vandergeest, P., Flaherty, M., & Miller, P. (1999). A Political Ecology of Shrimp Aquaculture in Thailand. Rural Sociology, 64(4), 573–596. Vandergeest, P., & Unno, A. (2012). A new extraterritoriality? Aquaculture certification, sovereignty, and empire. Political Geography, 31, 358-367 Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Moreira, M. T., & Feijoo, G. (2016). Opportunities and challenges of implementing life cycle assessment in seafood certification: a case study for Spain. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21, 451-464. Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Sioen, I., Van Camp, J., & De Henauw, S. (2007). Perceived importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: a consumer behavior perspective. Ambio, 36(7), 580–585. Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude – Behavioral Intention” Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 169–194. Volpe, J. ., Beck, M., Ethier, V., Gee, J., & Wilson, A. (2010). Global Aquaculture Performance Index. Univesity of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Available online: http://web.uvic.ca/~gapi/data/reports/GlobalAquaculturePerformaceIndex.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2016). World Bank, FAO, WorldFishCenter, & ARD. (2012). Hidden harvest. The Global Contribution of Capture Fisheries. Report number: 66469-GLB, pp. 72. WWF. (2015). Weaker Aquaculture Standards Would Boost Risk to Oceans, WWF Warns. Available online: http://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/weaker- aquaculture-standards-would-boost-risk-to-oceans-wwf-warns (accessed on 18 June 2016).

64 WWF. (2016). WWFs Fiskguide 2016. Available online: http://www.wwf.se/vrt- arbete/hav-och-fiske/ww-fs-fiskguide/1243694-ww-fs-fiskguide-nr-du-ska-kpa- miljvnlig-fisk (accessed on 25 June 2016). Wylie, L., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Moore, A. (2016). Keys to successful blue carbon projects: Lessons learned from global case studies. Marine Policy, 65, 76–84. Ziegler, R., & Ott, K. (2011). The quality of sustainability science: a philosophical perspective. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 7(1), 31-44. Ziegler, F., Emanuelsson, A., Eichelsheim, J. L., Flysjö, A., Ndiaye, V., & Thrane, M. (2011). Extended Life Cycle Assessment of Southern Pink Shrimp Products Originating in Senegalese Artisanal and Industrial Fisheries for Export to Europe. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15(4), 527–538. Ziegler, F., Hornborg, S., Green, B. S., Eigaard, O. R., Farmery, A. K., Hammar, L., … Smith, A. D. M. (2016). Expanding the concept of sustainable seafood using Life Cycle Assessment. Fish and Fisheries, 10.1111/faf.12159.