Marine Policy 67 (2016) 30–39

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Small in scale but big in potential: Opportunities and challenges for

fisheries certification of Indonesian small-scale tuna fisheries
Deirdre E. Duggan n, Momo Kochen
Masyarakat dan Perikanan, Indonesia (MDPI), Pertokoan Istana Regency, Blok S No. 7, Jalan By Pass Ngurah Rai, Pesanggaran, Denpasar 80223, Bali,
Indonesia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Achieving sustainable fisheries and certifications can be challenging for developing countries, affecting
Received 15 August 2015 the achievement of global seafood sustainability and food security. Indonesia is one of the world's
Received in revised form leading producers of tuna products but struggles to achieve certification. Small-scale tuna fisheries are an
7 January 2016
important component of the Indonesian fisheries sector, especially with regard to employment and in-
Accepted 9 January 2016
come. The Marine Stewardship Council is the most recognised fisheries certification scheme worldwide
but is criticised for being inaccessible to small-scale fisheries. Fair Trade has traditionally focussed on
Keywords: land-based products, but recently developed a standard for capture fisheries. Traceability systems are
Traceability important components of many fisheries certifications and are essential in ensuring product quality and
Market access
food provenance. This paper discusses the challenges and opportunities facing Indonesian small-scale
Yellowfin tuna
tuna fisheries achieving certification and implementing traceability. The outlook for certification of such
Fair Trade
Marine Stewardship Council fisheries is promising, given recent global and national developments but requires increasing commit-
Sustainability ment to communicate the importance and value of such schemes in developing countries.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The global demand for sustainably-sourced seafood is increas-
ing. Certification schemes and initiatives, such as consumer re-
commendation lists, are influencing consumers' preferences [1].
The prominence of eco-labelling and certification schemes has
grown in recent years, with various schemes applied to Pacific
tuna fisheries [2] and similar efforts in the Indian Ocean [3]. Eco-
labelling and certification schemes are market-based approaches
to support sustainability, providing product attribute information
to consumers related to environmentally friendly or sustainable
production methods [4]. These schemes usually arise from the
‘Global North’; as net importers of seafood, they have an increas-
ing influence on sustainability, using market forces to require
seafood products with specific attributes, socially or en-
vironmentally motivated. Many large retailers with seafood
counters from the ‘Global North’ have made commitments based
on their seafood sourcing policies, aiming to source ‘certain per-
centage of certified fish’, or ‘only fish coming from a credible
Fishery Improvement Project’, within specified timelines [5]. These
commitments also cover ensuring full chain traceability and
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: deirdre.duggan@mdpi.or.id (D.E. Duggan),
mkochen@mdpi.or.id (M. Kochen).
assurance to the consumer that products are not associated with
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fisheries. It is estimated that
 60% of all fish and fish related products are sourced from the
Global South [6], from areas frequently characterised by ‘weak
governance’: limited fisheries management or awareness of sus-
tainability issues and environmental stewardship. Consequently,
an apparent demand for certified and traceable seafood exists, but
the Global South, where the majority of the fish indicated in these
commitments will come from, is not yet in a position to supply it
[7]. In response, many Global South producers are enroling in
certification schemes to maintain, or in some cases gain, market
access.
Indonesia is a large seafood producer, with tuna species being
an economically valuable resource, especially for the export mar-
ket. The priority species are skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and
yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), with bigeye (Thunnus obesus)
and albacore (Thunnus alalunga) also important. In 2013, the total
export value of tuna products was  760 million USD [8] (  18% of
Indonesian fishery product exports, by value). Given the large
volume of production from developing countries, implementing
certification schemes in such countries, like Indonesia, can help
towards maintaining global food security and meeting the market
demand for increased sustainable production for future fish con-
sumption [9].
This article focuses on the challenges and opportunities facing
Indonesian small-scale tuna industry in achieving one of two

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.008
0308-597X/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D.E. Duggan, M. Kochen / Marine Policy 67 (2016) 30–39
certification schemes, (Fair Trade and Marine Stewardship Council)
and in establishing traceability systems to meet the chain-of-
custody requirements of both, in the face of increasing market
demand. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, it is estimated
that up to 90% of vessels targeting tuna species are small-scale,
o5 gross tonnage (GT) [10]. Approximately 60% of the catch vo-
lume is caught by purse seiners and  20% of the catch volume
caught by longline fishing, the remainder caught with a mixture of
small-scale gears [11]. Although small-scale Indonesian tuna
fisheries catch a small proportion of the total catch, they make an
important contribution to communities throughout Indonesia in
providing a livelihood solution in remote areas. These fisheries are
important sources of nutrition and food security in rural com-
munities [12], both within Indonesia and the Coral Triangle Re-
gion, emphasised by the establishment of the ‘Coral Triangle In-
itiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security’ [13].
There is mounting concern for the status of some stocks: bigeye
is classified as over-exploited, yellowfin as fully exploited and
skipjack classified as exploited at a moderate level [10]. The si-
tuation in the Coral Triangle Region is exacerbated by sparse data
collection, an open access system and poor management [14].
Despite referencing a ‘sustainable approach’ to resource manage-
ment and development in its National Development Plan [15],
Indonesia generally has a poor record of implementation and en-
forcement, supporting expansion rather than following the pre-
cautionary approach to fisheries or the ecosystem approach to
fisheries management [16]. Recent changes in the Indonesian
Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, (MMAF), are at-
tempting to redress previous fisheries management actions and
the new fisheries minister aims to stimulate prosperity for In-
donesian fishermen by focusing on sustainable practices. Building
on a basis of strong, yet minimally enforced existing fisheries
regulations, additional regulations were introduced recently (Ta-
ble 1). To reinforce the commitment to these regulations, MMAF
applied a ‘shock therapy’ approach: three Vietnamese-flagged
vessels in Raja Ampat and two Papua New Guinea-flagged vessels
in the Arafura Sea were destroyed in December 2014, with more
destroyed since then.
Masyarakat Dan Perikanan Indonesia (MDPI, www.mdpi.or.id),
is an non-governmental organisation working with small-scale
fishermen in Indonesia to support the achievement of responsible
and sustainable fisheries. The work of MDPI covers three main
Table 1
Recent regulations of relevance to small-scale operations, with potential positive and potential negative consequences briefly outlined.
Regulation number Scope
Ministerial regulation Pause the licensing of Indonesian vessels – Increased surveillance, combating number of
56 of 2014 [17,18] and temporary suspension of fishing li-
cences to vessels constructed abroad
Ministerial regulation Transhipment ban unless offloading to
57 of 2014 [19] designated Indonesian port
Ministerial regulation Prohibition of trawls in all of Indonesia's – Potential benefits for stocks and the ecosystem – Increased unemployment, on fishing vessels and
2 of 2015 [20] fishery management areas
Ministerial regulation Fishing banned in breeding and spawn-
4 of 2015 [21] ing ground of the Banda Sea
Proposed Closing four nautical mile (nm) zone to
commercial fishing, only small-scale
fishers may fish here
31
topics (Table 2). These topics are important for national and in-
ternational food security, ensuring sustainable ecosystems and fish
stocks, assuring food safety and quality and contribute to com-
munity development in isolated regions. This paper draws on
MDPI's experience in the field with small-scale tuna fisheries of
Indonesia, as well as published literature, to discuss the challenges
and opportunities facing small-scale tuna fisheries in terms of
fisheries certification and traceability implementation.
2. Fair Trade, Marine Stewardship Council and Traceability
2.1. Background to the Indonesian context
Indonesian small-scale fisheries face a number of challenges for
achieving sustainable tuna fisheries. Fisheries certifications can
help address these challenges, and help Indonesia meet increasing
market demand from consumers of the ‘Global North’. Attaining
certification comes with a number of general challenges arising
from Indonesia's status as a developing country. Small-scale tuna
fishery operations often occur in remote, small communities of
Indonesia, meaning accessibility, education, socioeconomic con-
ditions, etc., are variable at best, and poor at worst. Investment in
public infrastructure in Indonesia remains low [22,23], creating
problems for rural communities, especially in eastern Indonesia
[10]. Poor road conditions and in some areas, lack of developed
transport links, can create difficulties in reaching fishing commu-
nities and vice versa in transporting product to market. Many
communities do not have continuous electrical supply, with a
generator often the only electrical supply option available at night,
which increases cost in maintaining product quality within the
cold chain. There may be limited access to ice and fuel. Due to the
remote location of some fishing communities, telephone signal
and internet connection are not always readily available. Many
landing facilities are minimal, often only a simple beach landing
with no dedicated facilities for maintaining quality. Education le-
vels are low, especially in eastern Indonesia [24], making the
guidelines and need for fisheries certification schemes difficult for
small-scale fishermen to grasp and they often do not see any
immediate benefits of participation. Socioeconomic conditions
mean that individuals usually focus on short-term subsistence and
financial income, with limited importance placed on long-term
Potential positive Potential negative
– Reduced investment from international
illegal and foreign vessels companies
– Reducing international competition for In- – Financial losses and employment losses for na-
donesian fishers, i.e. in areas such as North Su- tional fleets
lawesi and North Maluku with a large presence
of Filipino vessels
– Increased processing of Indonesian resources in – Closure of small-scale operations as the trans-
Indonesian facilities could increase the value of hipment ban may increase fuel costs to unviable
the Indonesian processing sector levels
– Increased demand for fish caught by non-trawl in processing facilities who are already having
methods (i.e. handline and pole and line) difficulties sourcing fish due to moratoriums
– Pressure to find alternative food sources for ar-
tisanal and ‘fishing for food’ fishers affected by
the ban on artisanal hand trawls
– Reduced fishing pressure in this area potentially – Transfer of fishing pressure to other locations,
allowing growth in populations generating increased pressure on and competi-
tion for other stocks
– Increase the rights and ownership of small-scale
fishermen on the resource
32 D.E. Duggan, M. Kochen / Marine Policy 67 (2016) 30–39

Table 2
The three topics that are the focus of MDPI's work in Indonesia.

Topic Brief description

1. Supporting Fair Trade certification A focus on social and community considerations, fisher empowerment, co-management, management development
as well as community development, data collection, supply chain transparency and environmental stewardship.
2. Supporting Marine Stewardship Council Involvement in Fishery Improvement Programs (FIPs), a focus on supporting industry in implementing sustainable
certification fishing practices, through data collection, co-management, community capacity building, engagement with and
supporting government in management development.
3. Traceability Identifying traceability requirements, assessing the ability of a traceability system to incentivise sustainable practices,
identifying and researching the use of technology in well-functioning traceability systems and implementing a tra-
ceability system for the tuna supply chain to meet chain of custody requirements.

planning, an observation comparable with other developing world party auditing for certification is done through an accredited
fisheries [25]. Certification Assessment Body. The basis of the standard focuses
Following a long period of centralized management a decen- on the formation of Fisher Associations (FAs), who vote in a de-
tralised system was enacted in 1999 [26], with provincial gov- legate Fair Trade Committee (FTC). The FTC is responsible for en-
ernments having authority over waters internal to the 12 nm suring transparency regarding the use of the Premium Fund, en-
boundary [27]. Decentralisation has presented challenges for suring progress related to achieving compliance criteria, motivat-
provincial governments and small-scale fisheries, stemming from ing towards sustainable practices and liaising with the Certificate
misunderstandings of what is meant by the term ‘management Holder, usually a seafood processor, importer or a small holders
authority’, perhaps due to the minimum effort the central gov- cooperative to manage the resource [31]. This section discusses the
ernment placed on communicating and formal training for the challenges and opportunities for small-scale Indonesian fisheries
implementation of the decentralisation act [27]. This is reflected in in achieving Fair Trade certification (Table 3).
the often vague and ambiguous legal framework relating to coastal
management [28]. Additionally, the provincial governments face 2.2.1. Challenges
data collection challenges under the decentralised system [27]. The exact number of small-scale fishermen in Indonesia is
The difficulties in performance of the decentralised system creates unknown, with many fishermen migrating between islands de-
challenges for achieving fisheries certification, many of which re- pending on the season (i.e. tuna fishermen from Sulawesi travel to
quire, amongst others, legal registration and licences, collection of the Moluccas at certain times of the year, following the tuna sea-
fishery data and monitoring and reporting of illegal fishing activ- sonal migration pattern, as observed by MDPI in the field). This
ity. This combination of background challenges complicates the creates difficulties in coordinating the fishermen and in forming
implementation of fisheries certification schemes in small-scale FAs [31]. This transient nature of the fishers also makes allocation
Indonesian fisheries. of the Premium Fund difficult: the fund is designated for the de-
velopment of participating fisher communities and not intended
2.2. Fair Trade certification to benefit individual fishermen. In the case of the travelling fishers,
they may be fishing in regions removed from their communities
Fair Trade is an internationally recognised labelling scheme and spending of the premium becomes disconnected and less
informing the consumer that the specific commodity has been likely to be used in inclusively developed community projects. As
produced and sourced in an ethical, fair and environmentally many small-scale fishermen fish on a short-term basis, i.e. they are
sustainable manner. This labelling scheme was motivated by in- concerned about their daily income/subsistence rather than hav-
equalities in the global economy and food production and supply ing any long-term vision for the fishery, participation in trainings,
[29]. Fair Trade is defined as '…a trading partnership, based on capacity building and co-management initiatives (a requirement
dialogue, transparency and respect that seeks greater equity in under Fair Trade CF standard) are often not prioritised by fishers.
international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by
offering better trade conditions to, and securing the rights of, Table 3
marginalised producers and workers – especially in the South' An overview of the challenges and opportunities facing small-scale fisheries in
terms of Fair Trade certification, MSC certification and traceability (IFITT).
[30]. To help development in these producer communities, certi-
fied Fair Trade producers receive a Premium Fund, which is a set Certification/ Challenges Opportunities
percentage of the dock price of the raw material and is received in scheme
addition to the normal product rate. This fund can be spent im-
Fair Trade – Migratory nature of – Supply chains and
proving life in the community, improving efficiency in the pro-
fishermen suppliers
duction systems and in implementing environmental programs. – Suppliers – Traditional sasi-like
The focus of Fair Trade has traditionally been on land produced – Chain of custody systems
commodities, originally coffee and bananas, expanding to cotton, requirement
– First pilot of certification
varied fruits and farm produce in recent years. MDPI works with
standard
Fair Trade USA (www.fairtradeusa.org) and their newly developed Marine Stewardship – Migratory stocks, RFMOs – Data collection activities
Capture Fisheries (CF) Standard [31] to implement Fair Trade Council and reporting duties – Motivation from neigh-
projects in Indonesia. The CF Standard incorporates the Fair Trade – Extent of the FIP bouring countries'
USA principles relating to empowerment, economic development, – FIP distorting incentives certifications
– Financial costs
social responsibility and environmental stewardship. The standard Traceability – Different international – IFITT project
is structured to be implemented over a six year period, with requirements – Preventing IUU
compliance criteria relevant to a specific year and on-site audits – Infrastructure and – Improve structure and
carried out at Year Zero, One, Three and Six to ensure continuous facilities organisation
– Production lots and
progress is achieved in each of the principles. Years Two, Four and supply chain
Five are also audited, but through a desk review process. Third-
 D.E. Duggan, M. Kochen / Marine Policy 67 (2016) 30–39
The presence of suppliers could present as a challenge to cer-
tification [32]. Middlemen, or suppliers, are value chain actors who
sell the fishermens' catch to local processors. They may act as
aggregators of fish, logistic operators, as they transport fish and ice
to and from landing sites and to the factories/processors, em-
ployers and boat owners and /or unofficial local lenders. Suppliers
enjoy a powerful and often highly respected role in the commu-
nity and can have a large influence on the financial status of
fishermen [33]. It is possible that suppliers may not support the
creation of FAs, FTCs and the general empowerment of the fish-
ermen because it could be a potential threat to the supplier's and
role in the supply chain [32].
The Fair Trade Standard stipulates the development of a chain-
of-custody system under its trade requirements [31]. Many land-
ing sites around Indonesia lack the infrastructure for an electronic
traceability system and a hand-written coding system is common
place. How to implement a consistently transparent tracing system
is a difficulty facing the implementation of the Fair Trade chain of
custody requirements and is expanded on further in the Trace-
ability section.
Coral Triangle Processors, and MDPI as the implementation
partner, are the first to implement the Fair Trade CF standard,
piloting its relevance and applicability to small-scale fisheries. This
is a challenge as the Fair Trade approach has previously focused on
farmers and land-based activities, whereas the nature of small
scale fisheries in the Global South is new to the experience of Fair
Trade USA (i.e. open access resource, migratory nature of the tuna
etc.). As the Indonesian pilot is the first to test the standard and
implement its compliance criteria there are no previous experi-
ences from which to learn and which to refer to for advice.
2.2.2. Opportunities
As mentioned in the Challenges section, suppliers could be a
potential challenge to Fair Trade certification. However in the ex-
perience of MDPI, the response from suppliers has been largely
positive. They welcome the Fair Trade process as an opportunity
for the fishermen to improve their livelihoods, to receive re-
cognition for contributing to the community through the Premium
Fund, as well as to build strength and commitment into the supply
chain. The supply chain includes all stakeholders from the point of
production (point of catch or landing) to the final consumer, either
in country of origin or in an import country. The shape of supply
chains and the large number of suppliers in Indonesian small-scale
fisheries are advantageous for identifying and contacting fisher
communities that have potential to enter the Fair Trade certifica-
tion process. Through partnership with industry, MDPI has been
able to contact many fisher communities at the upstream end of
these supply chains.
Traditional resource management systems exist in Indonesia,
known as ‘sasi’, or ‘sasi laut’ for marine management in Maluku
[34,35], ‘awig–awig’ in Lombok [27], with similar systems found
throughout the archipelago. Traditionally, sasi-like systems man-
age marine resources by implementing harvest strategies, periodic
closures, gear restrictions, etc. based on cultural law. These sys-
tems present opportunities for sustainable small-scale tuna fish-
eries and proposed certifications. McLeod et al. [34] suggest that
sasi-like systems can be used as foundations for more modern
management systems and are more likely to be supported by local
stakeholders, ensuring long-term sustainable management. De-
centralised management has attempted to revive community-
based management systems, such as sasi, throughout Indonesia
[26]. While decentralisation can be a challenge, it can also be
beneficial, as local people may feel more encouraged and em-
powered to participate in decision-making [27], creating strong
community-based management systems. Fair Trade requires the
creation of FAs and FTCs in each assessment area and sasi-like
33
systems provide a good starting point for organising the fisher-
men. This is useful for the Fair Trade objective of empowering
communities and engaging producers as stakeholders in multi-
stakeholder co-management approaches, an integral part of the CF
standard at year three.
The target species of small-scale tuna fisheries are highly mi-
gratory [36], representing a mismatch with the inshore and coastal
remit of sasi-like systems, a potential limitation of such systems.
However it is possible that with additional support and capacity
building, modern sasi-like systems can evolve, with the ability to
contribute towards management of small-scale tuna fisheries. The
coastal remit of sasi-like systems can be used to the advantage of
achieving and maintaining Fair Trade certification by utilising
cultural law to manage the resource at the scale of the certified
fishery (specifically relevant to tuna and other migratory species).
Examples could include the implementation of closed seasons or
areas, surveillance activities and conservation solutions, agreed
upon and monitored in a local context.
2.3. Marine Stewardship Council certification
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an independent cer-
tification body promoting consumption of sustainably-sourced
seafood products through eco-labelling (www.msc.org [37]).
Fisheries are awarded MSC certification if they satisfy the required
standards for the three MSC principles: (1) fishing activity must be
at a sustainable level; (2) fishing operations should be managed to
maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the
ecosystem on which the fishery depends; and (3) the fishery must
meet all local, national and international laws and must have a
management system in place that responds to the changing cir-
cumstances and maintains sustainability [38]. The MSC label is one
of the most recognisable seafood product ecolabels in the global
market, enabling MSC-certified products to reach a large consumer
market and influence consumer preferences. Despite the strict
criteria for achieving MSC certification, there have been objections
to certified fisheries (20 with two upheld [39]). The MSC approach
is often criticised as being inaccessible to fisheries from develop-
ing countries and small-scale fisheries [37,40], with only 8% (26
fisheries) of all MSC-certified fisheries coming from developing
countries [41]. Of these 26 fisheries, only five can be considered
small-scale fisheries, just 2% of the total [7]. No Indonesian fish-
eries are currently certified or in assessment. Many of the chal-
lenges and opportunities relating to Fair Trade certification are
also relevant to MSC certification. This section discusses additional
challenges and opportunities for small-scale Indonesian fisheries
in achieving MSC certification (Table 3). For a more detailed ana-
lysis of the drivers and barriers to MSC certification for developing
world fisheries refer to [7].
2.3.1. Challenges
The migratory nature of tuna requires international coopera-
tion for efficient management of stocks. Indonesia is subject to the
United Nations Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS) and is a member of
three Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs): the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC);
Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna
(CCSBT) and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), all of
which were established to help manage transboundary stocks. As a
member of these RFMOs, Indonesia is required to submit catch
data on the relevant tuna species. However, archipelagic waters,
such as Indonesian's interior waters, are subject to different legal
status than normal territorial waters according to UNCLOS[36],
also covered in RFMO conventions. Under these conventions In-
donesia has less stringent reporting responsibility for fishing ac-
tivity within archipelagic waters. Although reporting from
34 D.E. Duggan, M. Kochen / Marine Policy 67 (2016) 30–39
Indonesian Fisheries Management Areas within RMFO remit is
improving, there is a poor submission record and, together with
the Philippines, Indonesia represents one of the ‘single largest
sources of uncertainty in current regional stock assessments’ [42].
This hampers progress towards meeting all or parts of each of the
three principles required for MSC certification.
Indonesian handline yellowfin tuna was part of two MSC pre-
assessments, an individual handline assessment in 2009 [43] and
as part of the 2010 assessment for Indonesian Pacific and Indian
Ocean tuna fisheries [44]. The latter was the basis for establishing
the Indonesian National Tuna FIP. This FIP incorporates three
species (yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack) and five gears (purse
seine, longline, handline, pole and line and troll) and is currently
in its fifth year of implementation. It is led by WWF Indonesia,
with certain aspects of the implementation supported by MDPI
and others. The number of species and gears included as well as
the large spatial scope makes the progress of this FIP towards MSC
certification challenging, requiring excellent coordination and re-
porting systems.
FIPs are not officially part of the MSC certification process yet
are often used to prepare a fishery for an MSC or other certifica-
tion, by making identifiable, reported progress in adopting more
sustainable practices, specific to the requirements of the target
certification. As market incentives also stimulate incentives for
sustainable practices [45], some FIPs have created partnerships
with retailers and processors to create market opportunities for
fisheries that are not currently MSC-certified but which are mak-
ing noticeable progress in the FIP [40]. The potential downside of
such partnerships, is that if these fisheries are achieving benefits
by being ‘on the path’ to MSC certification, the motivation for
achieving full MSC certification may be reduced [40]. This is a
challenge for small-scale tuna fisheries, who are under increasing
pressure to fulfil additional requirements from different sources
and for whom achieving the minimum acceptable level is already
demanding.
The large financial costs of the certification process may deter
small-scale fisheries entering the scheme, especially in developing
countries [37] with no guarantee of a premium on certification. It
is predominantly large-scale industrialised fisheries that can afford
the certification process [46]. A fishery is less likely to enter MSC
certification if the fishery is unconvinced about the returns certi-
fication will bring. It has been suggested previously, that in order
to make MSC certification more appealing and accessible to de-
veloping country fisheries, such as Indonesian small-scale tuna
fisheries, the MSC framework would need adjustments to cater for
the different nature and objectives of such fisheries [47].
2.3.2. Opportunities
Various data collection initiatives for small-scale fisheries exist
in Indonesia, such as government efforts supported by CSIRO, in-
dustry efforts from associations such as Asosiasi Perikanan Pole
and Line dan Handline Indonesia (AP2HI), and efforts from various
NGOs. MDPI data collection activities in sites across eastern In-
donesia support progress towards the MSC requirement for the
provision of information relating to the fishery. Two data collec-
tion activities are applied: (i) daily port sampling and (ii) monthly
unloading. The daily port sampling activity collects data on total
catches, operational level catch and effort data, fishing grounds
vessel numbers and characteristics, interaction with Endangered,
Threatened and Protected (ETP) species, bait use, catch composi-
tion and a subsample of length recordings. The monthly unloading
collects summary data from suppliers on the number of fishing
trips their vessels conducted, basic vessels characteristics, fishing
grounds, total catch, fishing trip duration and whether there was
any interaction with ETP species. The data collected by these forms
helps improve the available fishery information, a step towards
fulfilling MSC data requirements.
Neighbouring countries are progressing towards certification at
a quicker pace than Indonesia. The Maldives, Fiji, members of
‘Parties to the Nauru Agreement’, Cook Islands and New Zealand
all have various tuna fisheries that are MSC-certified (MSC web-
site). Numerous other neighbouring countries have tuna fisheries
that are in full assessment. Such developments should stimulate
progress in Indonesian small-scale tuna fisheries (i.e. handline and
pole and line), because, with increasing consumer demand for
MSC-certified tuna products, Indonesia may risk losing exports to
other certified products from the Southeast Asian region.
2.4. Traceability system
Transparency about food traceability has become an important
issue for consumers, who are increasingly concerned about food
attributes and credence; specifically the safety, quality and origin
of food products [48]. The nature of the supply chain is also
gaining interest amongst consumers, i.e. does it come from a legal
source?; has it come from a supply chain that maintains social
accountability?; has the cold chain been maintained?; most re-
cently, were slaves used in the sourcing of this fish? While trace-
ability systems were necessary to meet food safety requirements
in the past, in an effort to restore consumer confidence, system
requirements are now expanding to include origin and sustain-
ability information [49]. For example, the EU and US have trace-
ability requirements specifically tailored towards seafood products
[50-52]. Traceability is defined as 'the ability to access any or all
information relating to that which is under consideration,
throughout its entire life cycle, by means of recorded identifica-
tions' [53], and is often an implicit component of eco-labelling
schemes. For example, the MSC and Fair Trade certification
schemes discussed above have traceability requirements [31,54] in
the form of ‘chain-of-custody’, to validate that the certified pro-
duct is not mixed or diluted by uncertified product. This section
discusses the challenges and opportunities for Indonesian small-
scale tuna fisheries to be actors in traceability systems as ensuring
their products are traced throughout the entire supply chain
(Table 3).
2.4.1. Challenges
Most requirements for traceability originate in the Global
North. Highly-public food scandals typically occur in the Global
North, where the concept and understanding of food safety and
traceability is generally well understood and appreciated. In con-
trast, there is less emphasis on traceability in the Global South,
presenting a challenge when attempting to encourage supply
chain actors to participate in traceability systems. Although
stringent traceability is becoming a requirement for seafood im-
ports to various countries, subtle differences amongst require-
ments can impede and confuse the establishment of efficient
systems in the product's country of origin. Imported food products
to the US are subject to an assessment, covering a number of cri-
teria, one of which is the ‘traceability of food’ [52], while tuna
products are subject to NOAA form 370 [55]. Additionally a cap-
tain's statement per imported tuna product to the US is required
[55]. In the EU, the importer of food products must be able to ‘…
ensure, on investigation, that traceability can be assured at all
stages’ and that relevant documentation and labelling is used to
ensure traceability [51]. Additionally, the EU requires catch certi-
ficates for imported seafood, documenting various details relating
to transport, processing, Flag State, compliance with conservation
measures, etc [50]. This catch certificate is a method of combating
the trade of Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fish. IUU
fishing prevents economic gains for countries, usually in the bil-
lions of dollars, and also hampers conservation measures,
 D.E. Duggan, M. Kochen / Marine Policy 67 (2016) 30–39
generating uncertainty in stock assessments [56]. To export to the
EU and US, small-scale fisheries, and their associated supply
chains, will have to conform to the requirements of both, possibly
placing normative burdens on actors, creating confusion and bar-
riers to compliance [48].
Despite international requirements for traceability systems, a
key challenge exists in the mismatch between costs and benefits
for establishing such systems. Those making the financial con-
tribution to set up and maintain the system are not necessarily
those receiving the rewards. Additionally, those setting and im-
plementing guidelines may again be different actors [57,58]. Cur-
rently, Indonesian processors and food handlers have a require-
ment to ensure ‘quality assurance and control system of safety at
each stage/primary production process, processing and distribu-
tion of fishery products’, [59] and to have appropriate packaging to
allow traceability [60]. To meet increasing international demand
and increased consumer understanding, a more sophisticated,
reliable and updated traceability system is required, placing
pressure and costs on Indonesian supply chains to respond.
The infrastructure and facilities in many landing sites are cur-
rently not conducive to wide spread technology-based traceability.
The cost of developing the infrastructure would be unfeasible in
many rural areas of Indonesia, with barriers identified above, such
as limited or intermittent electricity supply and internet connec-
tion, compounding the challenge. Therefore, implementing ad-
vanced traceability systems would require extra human and fi-
nancial resources and training, and potentially incentives for par-
ticipation. The lack of guidance with regards what level of trace-
ability required is also an obstacle towards its rapid development.
Implementing an efficient traceability system can be a chal-
lenge for small-scale fisheries due to the nature of the production
lots: volumes from individual small-scale vessels may be too low
to process separately, requiring lots from multiple vessels to be
aggregated to maintain efficiency and decrease costs in processing
plants. Appropriate levels of granularity, the different levels of
traceable units [61], need to be determined that match practicality,
cost of implementation and overall benefit. Fine granularity re-
turns the largest benefits (tracing back to individual vessels) but is
often difficult to implement for wild-capture fisheries due to the
fluctuations in catch rates and small-scale nature. A further com-
plication is the long and complex supply chains that exist both
within Indonesia and with Indonesia and foreign markets (Fig. 1).
As with most other seafood supply chains, there is a large possi-
bility for mislabelling or mixing of products [62], compounded
Vessel A
Vessel B Supplier A Processor A Distributor A
Supplier B Processor B Distributor B
Vessel C
Supplier C Processor C Distributor C
Retailer A Restaurant A
Retailer B Restaurant B
Retailer C Restaurant C
Consumers
Fig. 1. Traceability supply chain showing the flow of fish through each point in the
supply chain.
35
further by the fact that the Indonesian government has been slow
to establish seafood traceability guidelines.
2.4.2. Opportunities
Indonesia may have limited experience and numerous ob-
stacles regarding financial and human capital to establish a tra-
ceability system for its tuna fisheries, but opportunities do exist. To
support Indonesian traceability efforts, the Improving Fisheries
Information and Traceability for Tuna (IFITT) project, was initiated
by Wageningen University [63] and is currently implemented in
collaboration with MDPI, Fishing & Living, ThisFish (Canada) and
the University of Bogor, Indonesia. The IFITT project arose from the
recognition that international requirements for supply chain
transparency from producing nations were increasing, and that
Indonesia, similar to neighbouring countries, is ‘fish rich but data
poor’. Traceability was proposed a potential tool to support In-
donesian data availability and contribute towards international
requirements. The IFITT project aims to develop a consumer-facing
traceability system, through which consumers in the ‘North’ can
track the journey of their seafood product. This project is an op-
portunity for small-scale tuna fisheries, providing the support and
advice required to establish credible traceability systems for their
products as well as providing a medium for communicating the
story of the community-based fishermen involved in sustainability
and Fair Trade efforts to the consumer. Through this project the
information gap between source and plate can be closed and a face
given to the fishery and the product.
Traceability systems are also seen as tools to combat IUU cat-
ches entering the supply chain [6]. Traceability allows small-scale
tuna fisheries to demonstrate that their catches are responsibly
sourced and comply with various international agreements relat-
ing to IUU activities. This is virtually impossible for small-scale
producers without a reliable traceability system.
Despite the challenges in establishing a traceability system,
benefits for the supply chain and actors will develop. These are
summarised in Mai et al. [58] and cover aspects such as access to
new markets and competitive advantages, reducing liability costs,
waste reduction, product and company reputation, etc. Im-
plementing traceability systems in Indonesia can help structure
and organise the workflow, improving production efficiency. Tra-
ceability systems have been implemented successfully in a fish-
eries context, a case study with the Norwegian white fish sector
being one example [64]. The introduction of a traceability system
in the Norwegian case study shows that traceability generates
more benefits than costs, as perceived by the employees and
supply chain actors. The increased level of product documentation
generated higher quality awareness amongst employees, and their
general view of traceability was positive, viewing it as a method of
securing jobs and improving income during uncertain times [64].
Proof of steps to ensure food safety and quality, as contained in a
traceability system, can reassure consumers [65], encouraging
purchases of such quality-assured products. A well-executed tra-
ceability system could bring similar benefits to small-scale tuna
fisheries of Indonesia.
3. Outlook for eco-certification of Indonesian small-scale tuna
fisheries
Despite the challenges, the outlook for Indonesian small-scale
fisheries is promising, regardless of whether a fishery engages in
certification programs or not. National developments are en-
couraging more sustainable fishing practices and improved fish-
eries management, as shown by the management approach of the
new minister (see Table 1). There is an increasing effort to tackle
IUU fishing through the establishment of a dedicated anti-illegal
36 D.E. Duggan, M. Kochen / Marine Policy 67 (2016) 30–39

Table 4
The Bench Marking Tool (BMT) report sheet for Indonesian Pacific Handline Tuna, based on the Indonesian FIP review conducted in May 2015. Each of the five gears have a
similar BMT report sheet showing the current status of each Performance Indicator.

fishing task force. A recent regulation stipulates that fisheries
management development in Indonesia should follow the Eco-
system Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) [66]. The ca-
pacity freeze covered by the license moratorium [17] was recently
extended until October 31st 2015 [18]. These, and many other
regulations, are important developments in a country where a
fisheries ministry was only established in 2004 [67].
In October 2014 the Moluccan Handline Yellowfin Tuna became
the first marine product to be certified Fair Trade USA, and the first
wild caught fishery product to be certified through a sustainability
 D.E. Duggan, M. Kochen / Marine Policy 67 (2016) 30–39
standard in Indonesia. A handline yellowfin tuna fishery in Central
Sulawesi will also aim for certification within 2015. MDPI has
noted significant progress in the individual participating fishers'
perspectives on resource management and sustainability. Resource
management, fishery documentation and conservation of ETPs
were not important considerations for many small-scale fishers
previously, but compliance criteria and regular auditing has in-
creased awareness. The requirement that 30% of the Premium
Fund is spent on environmental issues has affected the perspective
of newly certified communities: waste management units were
established in a Buru Island community.
A recent study found that FIPs for Developing Country Fisheries
(DCF) were spending more time in stages one-three of a five step
progression of improvement than fisheries from developed coun-
tries, with some DCFs struggling to progress beyond stage two [9].
Given the challenges facing the adoption of sustainable fishing
practices and achievement of fisheries certifications in developing
countries, outlined in particular for Indonesia in the previous
sections, it may be unfair to criticise DCF for taking a longer time
to progress along the FIP ladder. DCFs have a different starting
point than fisheries from developed countries, with different
conditions of infrastructure, facilities, education and financial
status. Implementing FIPs that make noticeable, timely progress in
DCFs is more challenging than in developed countries, but not
impossible. Indonesian tuna FIPs are gaining momentum and
support from numerous partners including the Indonesian Gov-
ernment. These public–private partnerships help identify gaps in
FIP progress, identify areas in need of development, and provide
support and initiatives to achieve improvements, create market
opportunities and provide consumer and stakeholder access to
progress through public reporting.
MDPI supports implementation of the WWF-led national tuna FIP.
MDPI activities focus predominantly on handline yellowfin tuna, in
partnership with other groups such as Fishing & Living and AP2HI.
Less specific activities support progress of all gears and species in-
volved in the wider FIP, such as assisting in the development of
Harvest Strategies. The progress of the Handline FIP, named the ‘In-
donesian Handline MDPI/Anova-Fishing & Living FIP’ is monitored
and reported on the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership FishSource
website [68]. This FIP is currently rated at level ‘B’, the highest
possible level being ‘A’ [68] and is currently in stage four out of five
[69]. Progress towards meeting the 28 Performance Indicators of the
new MSC standard version 2.0 is continuous, with annual progress
reported in all three principles (see example Bench Marking Tool
report sheet for the Handline gear in Table 4). Recent improvements
in the management aspect have resulted in large steps towards
Principle III, and there is a strong focus on developing and im-
plementing harvest strategies and finalising a robust management
plan. The Indonesian government and industry have recognised the
need to participate in the growing international movement towards
certified seafood, with an announcement by MMAF that the end of
2015 will see the first Indonesian tuna fisheries enter the full as-
sessment phase of MSC. Recent developments within MSC have re-
sulted in the launch of a ‘Global Fisheries Sustainability Fund’, spe-
cifically aimed at supporting research and projects related to small-
scale fisheries and achieving MSC certification [70].
Small-scale fisheries are reliant on retailers choosing their
higher priced, eco-labelled, traceable product over a cheaper, less
environmentally-friendly option. Retailers’ decision to sometimes
choose the latter is not just related to price. Certified small-scale
fisheries may have an irregular and/or limited supply of product,
making it difficult for retailers to support them [71].
In the case of the Fair Trade certified yellowfin tuna fishery in
Maluku, traceability is a requirement for the standard holder and
has played an important role in achieving the certification. In
Maluku, traceability is a valuable tool to keep certified products
37
separate from uncertified products. Traceability also provides in-
formation on how much product comes from each village and
fisher association, the basis for calculating the Premium Fund.
Traceability is key to the fishermen ensuring they receive the
correct amount of funds, as well as building knowledge about the
supply chain. Empowerment of fishermen is a main objective of
Fair Trade and transparency about the market for their product is
an opportunity, potentially motivating increased interaction with
these global supply chains. The IFITT project is currently expand-
ing, focusing on incorporating simple, open source technology
with the existing consumer-facing system to support small/med-
ium-sized processors implement robust and affordable traceability
systems. National and regional work will support this, with the
newly initiated OCEANs project of USAID focusing on developing a
regional catch documentation and traceability system for ASEAN
countries [72]. These, and other projects, as well as the recent
recommendations for a global traceability framework [73], are
opportunities for traceability systems in Indonesia. Even with a
lack of strong state regulations around traceability, a robust and
credible system can be developed through key partnerships be-
tween industry and NGOs, a growing trend in Indonesia [16].
The demand for quality assurances of seafood products, in
terms of sustainability, socially fair, etc., have motivated the es-
tablishment of numerous certification schemes, aside from the
two discussed in this paper. Such diversity in certification schemes
offers choice to fisheries, termed ‘horizontal differentiation’. Ad-
ditionally, within each certification scheme, multiple levels of
achievement can exist, driven either internally by the certification
owner or externally by the market [40], termed ‘vertical differ-
entiation’ [74]. However, even with such horizontal and vertical
possibilities, certification may still not be an option for small-scale
fisheries, especially when there is low international market de-
mand for the product [75]. These small-scale fisheries can still
benefit from more sustainable fishing practices, to ensure food
security and alleviate poverty within the local community. The
FAO recently developed a set of voluntary guidelines for securing
sustainable small-scale fisheries in the context of food security and
poverty eradication [76]. These guidelines are important for en-
suring sustainability, not just to satisfy market demand, but also
for improving small-scale fisheries globally.
4. Conclusion
This paper has focused on a limited selection of certification
schemes and on one country. However the lessons can be ab-
sorbed by other certification schemes and used as example ex-
periences for other countries of similar status aiming towards
achieving certifications for their small-scale fisheries. Latin
American countries [77], Vietnam, Bangladesh [78] and others, all
face similar challenges for achieving fisheries certification, which
need to be overcome before a global supply of sustainably sourced
seafood products and food security can be realised. Achieving
certification in developing countries is not a solitary endeavour.
MDPI would not have achieved its current level of success without
support from additional organisations and foundations, both
within and outside of Indonesia. Partnerships with such organi-
sations and excellent working relationships with the people on the
ground are key in any system seeking to improve sustainability
and achieve certification schemes.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Megan Bailey and the reviewer for com-
ments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. We
38 D.E. Duggan, M. Kochen / Marine Policy 67 (2016) 30–39
would also like to thank the dedicated programme teams of MDPI
for their dedication to sustainable small-scale fisheries. We would
like to thank WWF, IPNLF and MMAF for their support in the In-
donesian tuna FIP work.
References
[1] J. Belson, Ecolables: ownership, use and the public interest, Law J. Int. Trade-
mark Assoc 7 (2012) 96–106.
[2] D.S. Kirby, C. Visser, Q. Hanich, Assessment of eco-labelling schemes for Pacific
tuna fisheries, Mar. Policy 43 (2014) 132–142, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2013.05.004.
[3] Anderson C, Huntington T, Macfadyen G, Powers J, Scott I, Stocker M. Pole and
Line Skipjack Fishery in the Maldives, 2012.
[4] C. Roheim Wessells, The economics of information: markets for seafood at-
tributes, Mar. Resour. Econ. 17 (2002) 153–162.
[5] A. Gutierrez, T. Thornton, Can consumers understand sustainability through
seafood eco-labels? A US and UK case study, Sustainability 6 (2014)
8195–8217, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6118195.
[6] FAO The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, FAO, Rome, 2014.
[7] E. Blackmore, H. Norbury, E.Y. Mohammed, S.B. Cavicchi, R. Wakeford, What's
the catch?, Lessons from and prospects for the Marine Stewardship Council
certification in developing countries, IIED, London, 2015.
[8] MMAF, Kelautan dan Perikanan dalam Angka Tahun 2014 (Marine and Fish-
eries in figures 2014), 2014.
[9] G.S. Sampson, J.N. Sanchirico, C.A. Roheim, S.R. Bush, J.E. Taylor, E.H. Allison,
et al., Secure sustainable seafood from developing countries, Science 348
(2015) 504–506.
[10] R. Sunoko, H.W. Huang, Indonesia tuna fisheries development and future
strategy, Mar. Policy 43 (2014) 174–183, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2013.05.011.
[11] Davies N, Harley S, Hampton J, McKechnie S. Stock assessment of the yellowfin
tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. 2014.
[12] N. Kawarazuka, C. Béné, Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to
household nutritional security: an overview, Food Secur 2 (2010) 343–357,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-0079-y.
[13] S. Foale, D. Adhuri, P. Aliño, E.H. Allison, N. Andrew, P. Cohen, et al., Food se-
curity and the Coral Triangle Initiative, Mar. Policy 38 (2012) 174–183, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.033.
[14] M. Bailey, J. Flores, S. Pokajam, U.R. Sumaila, Towards better management of
Coral, Triangle tuna. Ocean Coast Manag 63 (2012) 30–42, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.03.010.
[15] MMAF, Undang-undang Republik Indonesia, nomor 25 tahun 2004, 2004.
[16] M. Bailey, A.M.M. Miller, S.R. Bush, P.A.M. van Zwieten, B. Wiryawan, Closing
the incentive gp: the role of public and private actors in governing Indonesia's
tuna fisheries, J. Environ. Policy Plan (2015) 1–20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1523908X.2015.1063042.
[17] MMAF, Peraturan menteri kelautan dan perikanan Republik Indonesia, Nomor
56/Permen-KP/2014. 2014.
[18] MMAF, Peraturan menteri kelautan dan perrikanan Republik Indonesia, No-
mor 10/Perrmen-KP/2015. 2015.
[19] MMAF, Peraturan menteri kelautan dan perikanan Republik Indonesia, Nomor
57/Permen-KP/2014. 2014.
[20] MMAF, Peraturan menteri kelautan dan perikanan Republik Indonesia, Nomor
2/Permen-KP/2015. 2015.
[21] MMAF, Peraturan menteri kelautan dan perikanan Republik Indonesia, Nomor
4/Permen-KP/2015. 2015.
[22] World Bank, ,, Indonesia Economic Quarterly: Current challenges, Future Po-
tential, World Bank, Jakarta, 2011.
[23] B.D. Lewis, Urbanization and economic growth in Indonesia: good news, bad
news and (possible) local government mitigiation, Reg. Stud. 48 (2013)
192–207, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.748980.
[24] R. Miranti, Y. Vidyattama, E. Hansnata, R. Cassells, A. Duncan, Trends in pov-
erty and inequality in decentralising Indonesia, OECD Soc Employ Migr Work
Pap (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1815199x.
[25] L.S.L. Teh, L.C.L. Teh, U.R. Sumaila, W. Cheung, Time discounting and the
overexploitation of coral reefs, Environ. Resour. Econ. (2013) 1–24, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9674-7.
[26] H.Y. Siry, In search of appropriate approaches to coastal zone management in
Indonesia, Ocean Coast Manag 54 (2011) 469–477, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2011.03.009.
[27] A. Satria, Y. Matsuda, Decentralization of fisheries management in Indonesia,
Mar. Policy 28 (2004) 437–450, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2003.11.001.
[28] L. Wever, M. Glaser, P. Gorris, D. Ferrol-Schulte, Decentralization and partici-
pation in integrated coastal management: Policy lessons from Brazil and In-
donesia, Ocean Coast Manag 66 (2012) 63–72, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2012.05.001.
[29] L. Naylor, “Some are more fair than others”: fair trade certification, develop-
ment, and North-South subjects, Agric. Hum. Values 31 (2014) 273–284, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9476-0.
[30] B. Bowen, “Let’s go Fair.” Fair Trade Yearb. Europe, EFTA (2001) 21–41.
[31] Fair Trade, Fair Trade USA Capture Fisheries Standard (2014) 1–20.
[32] M. Bailey, S. Bush, P. Oosterveer, L. Larastiti, Fishers, Fair Trade, and finding
middle ground, Fish. Res. (2015) 1–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
fishres.2015.11.027.
[33] K. Ruddle, “Informal” Credit Systems in Fishing Communities: Issues and Ex-
amples from Vietnam, Hum. Organ. 70 (2011) 224–232.
[34] E. McLeod, B. Szuster, R. Salm, Sasi and marine conservation in Raja Ampat,
Indonesia, Coast Manag 37 (2009) 656–676, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
08920750903244143.
[35] I. Harkes, I. Novaczek, Presence, performance, and institutional resilience of
sasi, a traditional management institution in Central Maluku, Indonesia, Ocean
Coast Manag 45 (2002) 237–260, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(02)
00057-1.
[36] UNCLOS, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UN Doc. A/ CONF.
62/122, 1982.
[37] L.H. Gulbrandsen, The emergence and effectiveness of the Marine Stewardship
Council, Mar. Policy 33 (2009) 654–660, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2009.01.002.
[38] MSC, Marine Stewardship Council Fishery Standard: Principles and criteria for
sustainable fishing, 2010, pp. 1–8.
[39] C. Christian, D. Ainley, M. Bailey, P. Dayton, J. Hocevar, M. LeVine, et al., A
review of formal objections to Marine Stewardship Council fisheries certifi-
cations, Biol. Conserv. 161 (2013) 10–17, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2013.01.002.
[40] S.R. Bush, H. Toonen, P. Oosterveer, A.P.J. Mol, The “devils triangle” of MSC
certification: Balancing credibility, accessibility and continuous improvement,
Mar. Policy 37 (2013) 288–293, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.011.
[41] MSC, Global Impacts Report 2013: Monitoring and Evaluation, 2013.
[42] WCPFC, West Pacific, East Asia Oceanic Fisheries Management, UNDP Proj. Doc
1 (2009) 1–39.
[43] Moody Marine Limited, Pre-assessment Report for Indonesian Handline Yel-
lowfin Tuna, 2009.
[44] Moody Marine Limited, Pre-assessment report for Indonesian Pacific and In-
dian Ocean tuna fisheries, 2010.
[45] C.A. Roheim, F. Asche, J.I. Santos, The elusive price premium for ecolabelled
products: Evidence from seafood in the UK market, J. Agric. Econ 62 (2011)
655–668, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2011.00299.x.
[46] A.H. Hoel, Ecolabelling in fisheries: an effective conservation tool?, in: F. Asche
(Ed.), Prim. Ind. facing Glob. Mark. supply Chain. Mark. Nor. food For. Prod,
Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 2006, pp. 343–373.
[47] M. Pérez-Ramírez, B. Phillips, D. Lluch-Belda, S. Lluch-Cota, Perspectives for
implementing fisheries certification in developing countries, Mar. Policy 36
(2012) 297–302, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.06.013.
[48] H. Ringsberg, Perspectives on Food Traceability: A Systematic Literature Re-
view. Supply Chain Manag, Int. J. 19 (2014) 558–576, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
SCM-01-2014-0026.
[49] M. Bailey, S.R. Bush, A. Miller, M. Kochen, The role of traceability in trans-
forming seafood governance in the global South, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain
18 (2016) 25–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.004.
[50] EC, Council regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008,, Off. J. Eur.
Union (2008) 1–32.
[51] Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
28 January 2002, Off. J. Eur. Communities (2002) 1–24.
[52] FDA, Food Safety Modernization Act, 2011.
[53] P. Olsen, M. Borit, How to define traceability, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 29
(2013) 142–150, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2012.10.003.
[54] G. Parkes, J.A. Young, S.F. Walmsley, R. Abel, J. Harman, P. Horvat, et al., Behind
the signs—a global geview of fish sustainability information schemes, Rev.
Fish. Sci. 18 (2010) 344–356, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2010.516374.
[55] NOAA, Dolphin Safe Certificate, 2013. 〈http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/dol
phinsafe/noaa370.htm〉 (accessed May 26, 2015).
[56] D.J. Agnew, J. Pearce, G. Pramod, T. Peatman, R. Watson, J.R. Beddington, et al.,
Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing, PLoS One e4570 (2009) 4,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004570.
[57] Souza-Monteiro DM, Caswell JA. The Economics of Implementing Traceability
in Beef Supply Chains: Trends in Major Producing and Trading Countries.
Amherst, MA: 2004.
[58] N. Mai, S.G. Bogason, S. Arason, S.V. Árnason, T.G. Matthíasson, Benefits of
traceability in fish supply chains – case studies, Br. Food J. 112 (2010)
976–1002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070701011074354.
[59] MMAF, Peraturan menteri kelautan dan perikana Republik Indonesia, Nomor
19/Men/2010, 2010.
[60] MMAF, Keputusan menteri kelautan dan perikanan Republik Indonesia, No-
mor 52A/Kepmen-KP/2013, 2013.
[61] K.M. Karlsen, B. Dreyer, P. Olsen, E.O. Elvevoll, Granularity and its role in im-
plementation of seafood traceability, J. Food Eng. 112 (2012) 78–85, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.03.025.
[62] Warner K, Timme W, Lowell B, Hirshfield M. Oceana Study Reveals Seafood
Fraud Nationwide, 2013.
[63] Bush S, Bailey M, van Zwieten P. Improving Fisheries Information and Trace-
ability for Tuna (IFITT), 2013.
[64] K.A.M. Donnelly, P. Olsen, Catch to landing traceability and the effects of im-
plementation - A case study from the Norwegian white fish sector, Food
Control. 27 (2012) 228–233, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.03.021.
[65] W. van Rijswijk, L.J. Frewer, Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety
and their relation to traceability, Br. Food J. 110 (2008) 1034–1046, http://dx.
 D.E. Duggan, M. Kochen / Marine Policy 67 (2016) 30–39
doi.org/10.1108/00070700810906642.
[66] MMAF, Peraturan menteri kelautan dan perikanan Republik Indonesia, Nomor
9/Permen-KP/2015, 2015.
[67] MMAF, Undag-undang Republik Indonesia nomor 31 tahun 2004, 2004.
[68] SFP, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, FishSource profile for Yellowfin tuna -
Western and Central Pacific (Country: ID, Gear: LHP). 〈http://www.fishsource.
com/site/goto_profile_by_uuid/e24ccacc-1e7f-11e0-bc9c-40406781a598〉
2015.
[69] Fishing & Living, FIP Action Plan 2015, 〈http://fishing-living.org/indonesian-
fip-action-plan/〉 (accessed May 11, 2015).
[70] MSC, MSC launches global fisheries sustainability fund, 2015. 〈https://www.
msc.org/newsroom/news/msc-launches-global-fisheries-sustainability-fund〉
(accessed July 15, 2015).
[71] L.H. Gulbrandsen, Mark of Sustainability? Challenges for Fishery and Forestry
Eco-labeling. Environ Sci Policy, Sustain Dev 47 (2005) 8–23, http://dx.doi.org/
10.3200/ENVT.47.5.8-23.
[72] USAID, The Oceans and Fisheries Partnership, 2014.
39
[73] Bhatt T, Blaha F, Boyle M, DiMento B, Kuruc M, Matern HJ, et al. Re-
commendations for a Global Framework to Ensure the Legality and Trace-
ability of Wild-Caught Fish Products, 2015.
[74] S. Bush, P. Oosterveer, Vertically differentiating environmental standards: the
case of the Marine Stewardship Council, Sustainability 7 (2015) 1861–1883,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su7021861.
[75] Y. Stratoudakis, P. Mcconney, J. Duncan, A. Ghofar, N. Gitonga, K.S. Mohamed,
et al., Fisheries certification in the developing world: Locks and keys or square
pegs in round holes? Fish. Res. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
fishres.2015.08.021.
[76] FAO, Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries, in
the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication, 2-15, FAO; Rome.
[77] M. Pérez-Ramírez, S.E. Lluch-Cota, Fisheries certification in Latin America:
Reccent issues and perrspectives, Interciencia 35 (2010) 855–861.
[78] B. Belton, M.M. Haque, D.C. Little, L.X. Sinh, Certifying catfish in Vietnam and
Bangladesh: Who will make the grade and will it matter? Food Policy 36
(2011) 289–299, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.027.