Several suggestions for action were put forward for consideration by the meeting participants and around which a concluding discussion emerged:
Educate consumers. Very much a shared responsibility between the public authorities and private sector, both as general food information campaigns and additional information on individual products
But it is also imperative to provide consumers with information that makes it possible to choose food products with a known and verified CO2 impact. This is presently not the case in most food markets
While certain advances in analysing and understanding CO2 implications of food production have been made, work remains to be done, both analytical and informational. At present, consumers are not able to direct their choices accordingly.
Further advance on CO2 labelling on food. Use easy-to-understand indicators (e.g., green for low CO2, red for high CO2) to guide purchasing decisions. While this has started as public sector initiatives in some of the Nordic countries, the private operators have been slow in opting for CO2 food labelling, when available.
It is crucial to ensure that labelling systems are trustworthy and backed up by verifiable third-party certification. Challenges of a legal nature exist but are there other obstacles, mainly concerning data and of a methodological/technical nature.
Alternatives to labelling may include taxes on foods with a high CO2 footprint, and/or subsidies for those foods with a low CO2 footprint. It was shown that taxes are a “hard” policy measure, but alone they are insufficient in moving consumers towards healthier foods with lower GHG emissions.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies are difficult to compare across products and markets due partly to data availability, and partly to differences in methodologies. This is a particular concern for fish and fish products which are among the most traded food stuff in the world crossing borders several times before reaching the final place of consumption. In the Nordic region this is a major challenge as fish markets are highly integrated.
A key issue is how the proposed LCA methods are compatible across markets or whether they might constitute a trade impediment. In this regard, it is important to ensure Nordic coherence, and perhaps interoperability/equivalence of such systems across the Nordic countries, due to the close links between the fisheries markets.
Additional work and cooperation are needed to ensure a common level playing field. The EU Guidance on Environmental Footprint (PEFCR) for marine fish for human consumption is a welcome basis on which to start harmonisation.
Access to food options with information on climate impact could be further enhanced by the food service industry.
In schools, there is a need to increase learning about food and its climate impacts.
Fish processors, distributors and industry organisations all have a role to play in advancing the climate change agenda and it is in their interest to do so. For fish and fish products their relatively low CO2 impact compared to land-based food is an added advantage.
This might be further helped by the way supermarkets display foods e.g., with low CO2 foods at eye level within easy reach of consumers.
In its dietary recommendations the Nordic Council of Ministers now include references to the environmental/climate impact of consuming specific food products, “Nordic Nutrition Recommendations” which is a solid reference for market players.
Some fish processors are proactively working on better understanding their own CO2 impacts and are developing strategies for how to communicate this to their clients.
Public authorities can also play a more direct role through regulatory measures e.g. limiting CO2 impacts of foods and by ensuring transparency through food supply chains (for example mandatory disclosure of data).
Determining the release of CO2 due to any activity such as fishing or aquaculture goes beyond simply fuel use. With wild catches, a CO2 budget needs to include possible CO2 release from the seabed, the CO2 sequestration roles of the fish caught (particularly their faecal products) as well as from fishing induced changes in the food web, e.g. fewer high trophic level species in the ecosystem.