Certification and traceability are increasingly promoted as solutions to a wide range of challenges in global wildlife and fisheries trade. The aquarium industry is no different and many stakeholders are calling for certification and traceability for the aquarium, however, these concepts are often poorly defined, frequently conflated, and sometimes presented with expectations that do not align with how the industry actually operates. Understanding what certification and traceability are—and, just as importantly, what they are not—is essential before assessing whether they can work for the aquarium sector.

Marine Aquarium fish are often the subject of discussions on certification and traceability.

What is certification?

Certification is a formal assurance process that involves an independent assessment of a business against an agreed set of standards, with certification granted for a defined period if those standards are met. The purpose of certification is to provide confidence to buyers, regulators, and other stakeholders that a business is operating in accordance with recognised requirements. In other industries certification is often linked to a company’s capacity to enter certain markets or to sell to specific companies – we have not yet seen these types of market links in the aquarium industry but it is likely only a matter of time before we see such demands.

In the aquarium industry, certification typically relates to systems and practices, rather than individual fish. These may include biosecurity measures, fish health management, animal welfare standards, sustainable production or collection practices, staff training and competence, and record keeping and regulatory compliance. Certification therefore answers a simple question: has this operator been independently checked and verified against an agreed standard? In reality, most exporters and aquarium fish farms are already subject to some form certification through requirements of biosecurity or fish health certification as part of competent authority requirements for export Health Certificates. Whilst not full certification it is a good example of certification already common in the aquarium industry.

What is traceability?

Traceability, by contrast, is a record-keeping and information system. It allows fish, or more commonly batches of fish, to be followed through the supply chain and linked to key information such as origin, dates, locations, operators, health status and supporting documentation.

Traceability does not, by itself, guarantee good practice. It records what happened, but it does not assess whether those practices were appropriate or compliant. In the aquarium industry, traceability is most realistically applied at the batch, shipment, or operator level, rather than to individual fish, and is typically aligned with existing health certification and export documentation.

Certification and traceability are therefore complementary but distinct. Traceability provides transparency and evidence; certification provides verification and assurance. One cannot effectively replace the other.

Have certification schemes worked in the aquarium industry?

Historically, certification schemes have not worked well in the aquarium industry. The most frequently cited example is Marine Aquarium Council (MAC). Despite strong intentions, MAC failed to achieve broad and sustained adoption across supply chains and consumers. Costs were high relative to returns, uptake across the supply chain was limited, and the system proved difficult to maintain once external funding declined. Certification never became embedded as a normal commercial requirement within the trade.

Beyond MAC, various aquaculture and fisheries certification bodies have approached OFI over the years with proposals to certify the aquarium industry. These systems are generally derived from food-fish aquaculture or capture fisheries and are technically robust within their intended sectors. However, when applied to the aquarium industry, they are simply too onerous and too expensive, particularly at the farmer and small-scale fisherman level.

The aquarium industry is characterised by thousands of small operators, dispersed production and collection, thin margins, and a heavy reliance on trust-based commercial relationships. Certification systems designed for large, consolidated operations with significant administrative capacity will always struggle to function in this environment and are not suited to the aquarium industry.

The economic reality of certification

A commonly repeated claim in favour of certification is that it will result in higher prices being paid along the supply chain, particularly to fishermen and small-scale producers. While this assumption is frequently reported by authors and stakeholder commentators, the reality has been quite different. In practice, only a small number of consumers have indicated a willingness to pay more for certified fish, and even fewer have done so consistently. The majority of purchasing decisions in the aquarium market continue to be driven by price, availability, species, quality, and reliability of supply. Certification status, where recognised at all, generally plays a secondary role.

As a result, certified businesses often face a commercial disadvantage, as voiced by several MAC certified businesses to me. They take on the additional cost of developing and maintaining complex quality management systems, paying certification and auditing fees, and allocating staff time to compliance. However, they are then required to sell their fish at the same market price as uncertified competitors. In effect, costs increase while revenues remain unchanged, reducing profitability. Rather than being rewarded for better practice, early adopters of certification have frequently absorbed higher costs without receiving a corresponding commercial return.

Traceability: realistic expectations

Traceability has greater potential in the aquarium industry, but only if expectations are realistic. Systems that attempt to track individual fish, rely on constant digital connectivity, or assume high literacy and technological capacity at all levels of the supply chain are unlikely to succeed.

Systems must be applicable for long supply chains, and all members of the supply chain being committed to traceability. Aquarium supply chains are often long and fragmented which leaves it vulnerable to inconsistencies or breakdowns in data transfer. The system also needs to be easily accessible and suitable for workers with limited literacy in English as the majority of supply chains originate across Asia, Africa, South America where English is a second language and access to digital platforms could be limited.

Traceability works best when it is proportionate, focused on key control points, and aligned with existing documentation and inspection processes. When designed appropriately, it can support health certification, improve regulatory compliance, and strengthen confidence in the supply chain by attesting to health status and quality through the supply chain. On its own, however, traceability does not confirm compliance to animal welfare, sustainability, or biosecurity standards – rather it reports on what happens to the fish through the supply chain.

What this means going forward

The history of certification and traceability in the aquarium industry demonstrates that the challenge is not a lack of intent or commitment, but a lack of alignment between system design and industry reality. Directly importing certification models from food fisheries or aquaculture has repeatedly failed, not because the aquarium industry is unwilling, but because those systems are disproportionate to the risks, margins, and structure of the trade.

Any future approach must be industry-specific, cost-effective, and practical at the farmer and fisherman level. Certification must deliver tangible value, whether through market access, regulatory recognition, or other commercial advantages. Without this, it risks remaining a well-meaning concept that imposes additional costs without delivering corresponding benefits. There are also potential data privacy issues, who owns and controls the traceability data, where does the data reside, who will have access to all or part of it? Industry operators have also expressed issues with traceability data being commercially sensitive, many importers spend considerable time and resources in developing capacity of their supply chain and are often reluctant to reveal details of due to competitive advantages this develops. There is also the issue of how develop and operation of the traceability system will be funded. These are important questions that all need addressing.

However, there are significant opportunities for a well-designed traceability system to improve fish health, quality, and survival. By providing visibility of health and quality parameters throughout the supply chain, traceability can help identify where problems arise and where improvements are needed. Traceability also presents opportunities for fishers and farmers to receive additional income. Through digital systems, a portion of the final sale price could be returned to the source as a royalty, directly rewarding the production of healthy, high-quality fish and improving the overall economics for those at the start of the supply chain. For consumers, traceability can put a face to the origin of their fish. Scannable QR codes can provide information on where the fish came from, its health status, and practical guidance on its care in the aquarium, strengthening transparency, confidence, and connection across the supply chain.

Certification and traceability can work for the aquarium industry—but only when they are grounded in the realities of how the industry operates, rather than external assumptions. OFI will continue to work constructively with members, governments, and other stakeholders to support practical approaches that strengthen sustainability, livelihoods, and long-term resilience across the global aquarium industry.