Comments for MSC

It was probably criticisms from outside and also from inside the organisation that gave birth to this process. It is expected to:

1. Improve the clarity of the MSC’s environmental standard

2. Help fisheries understand what MSC’s certification bodies will be looking for during the assessment process

3. Facilitate the participation of stakeholders during the assessment process

4. Improve clarity for certification bodies during the preparation phase of assessment

5. Help expert assessment teams score fisheries consistently, whatever the fishery’s size, type or location

When, in the late 1990s, the MSC developed its certification principles and criteria, it based them on the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and on other international conservation agreements.

The MSC’s three main principles required that:

1. Fish stocks are maintained at healthy levels

2. The eco-system is fully functional and fishing activity does not threaten biological diversity

3. The fishery is managed effectively and in accordance with the FAO precautionary approach

Since then, the MSC has certified over 20 fish-supplying firms and 22 fisheries with 17 more in various stages of assessment and certification. Important changes also took place in its managing staff.

To make everybody happy in such an endeavour is undoubtedly a tall order. It would be a wonder if the MSC did not come, from time to time, under criticism. I have never been surprised by outpourings coming from parties disagreeing, rightly or wrongly, with that or other of the MSC’s judgments.

Seven years ago, upon MSC’s invitation, I attended a ‘senior advisors’ meeting, and wrote some recommendations, which I submitted to MSC’s board.

I believe, those recommendations, a selection of which I published in the July 2004 issue of SAMUDRA Report, are still relevant, particularly with respect to three important and inter-related issues: its public image; the certification process; and MSC Principles and Criteria (P&C).

Public image

It seems that some consumers are getting used to seeing the MSC logo indicating fish that are taken from stocks that are not overfished. So far so good. But, to keep it going, the MSC must maintain an image of full scientific and public-wise integrity and to be seen as an environment and fishery resources oriented public, non-profit organisation that uses market motivation to promote rational fishing. Nevertheless, in the eyes of sceptics, it may appear as an enviro-business, which, while ensuring its own financial welfare, is selling its customers the possibility of the MSC logo upgrading their products’ market value. Others may see it as the fishery industry related business’ answer to ‘green anti-fishing’ campaigns.

Certification process

Like justice, integrity must not only be done, but also be evident. But the MSC has left the cost and financial arrangements of certification to direct negotiations between the representatives of the fishery to be certified and the certifying consultancy firms. Such procedure is open to various ‘arrangements’ between the negotiating parties. An old maxim says: “It is the hole not the mouse that is the guilty one”.

My suggestion to the MSC was that it makes the financial arrangements with the certifying firm and then collects the due from the client. Thus, no monies change hands between the certified and the certifiers. Such procedure would allow the MSC to arrange for ‘discounts’ and ‘soft-payments’ in deserving cases, especially when certifying Third World countries’ fisheries.

MSC principles and criteria

Only a few of the world’s smaller scale fisheries can meet the present standards involved with MSC certification and pay for it. Nevertheless, sometime towards the end of the 20th century the MSC has decided to stay clear of adopting a special approach and P&C case-tailored to small-scale fisheries. This made it a tool for increasing the market appeal of fish from large and rich fisheries and the related producers, processors and suppliers, which made the MSC, at least in the eyes of the people affected, a pro-big-business enterprise favouring the rich and strong by giving their fish a better market chance.

The present MSC criteria requires management and data that one only meets in industrial countries. Therefore, a fishery that perhaps owing to its traditional management system shows long-term sustainability and deserves an MSC label will not be able to get it.

But also fisheries lacking the management methodologies needed for MSC certification can be assessed. For example, don’t many years of stable landings and effort indicate a sustainable fishery? The MSC should consider a revision of its criteria to meet the needs of all deserving fisheries, large or small-scale, throughout the world.

Aquaculture

The MSC has kept clear of the treacherous waters of marine aquaculture. On the one hand, the share of farmed fish in total foodfish production, including marine and estuarine/lagunar species, has continually increased. On the other hand, however, many aquaculture practices have become controversial, from the points of view of product quality and protection of marine habitats, wild stocks, and high fishmeal requirements. But why shouldn’t fish raised in sustainable aquaculture systems and fed with the right food be certified? Here comes the problem of commercial competition between aquaculture and fishing. But the MSC should not be affected by such considerations and should certify any fish that are fished or grown with good practices while censuring bad ones by default.

Certification in the fish farming sector, both finfish and shellfish, would encourage introduction of technological and other solutions for excess pollution due to cage, fish escapes, and broadcasting of parasites and diseases to wild stocks. This would require drafting of aquaculture-specific P&C and if MSC will not take up the glove, others will.

Notwithstanding, one shouldn’t forget that the MSC label indicates good practices with respect to fish, but not with respect to fishing people.