This is already old news, but it may be instructive to look
at the reasons given by the Alaska salmon industry for dumping MSC after more than a decade, and the response
from MSC, now that the fish guts have settled somewhat, so to speak.
Among the reasons given by the Alaskan salmon industry, the
Alaskan Fisheries Development Foundation and the Alaskan government, as
reported by http://thefishsite.com and
other media, is that MSC certification does not, in itself, make Alaskan salmon
sustainable. They consider the salmon
fishery to already be sustainable because it meets State and Federal
constitutional mandates for sustained yield, a commitment to scientific
research and the need serve public good.
According to http://www.upi.com/
the industry were also frustrated with the increasing complexity of MSC
certification. No doubt cost is also a factor
– not only for the certification itself, but also for annual audits and the
right to display the eco-label. Although
a non-profit, MSC has been able to fund considerable global expansion over the
last decade through fixed annual fees and variable royalties based on how much
MSC-labelled seafood is sold, as well as through donations.
MSC has not welcomed being dumped and has been quick to express its chagrin. It considers that whatever alternative
certification and eco-labelling scheme the industry comes up with, it will be
inferior with regard to independence, transparency, traceablity and quality,
attributes MSC has put forward to establish global brand identity.
Is the Alaskan salmon industry in the vanguard of a swing
away from MSC certification? There is no doubt that MSC certification is highly
complex and expensive. Is MSC
certification necessary for a fishery to be considered sustainable?
It all depends.
Nations like the United States and New Zealand have clear standards
embodied in policy and legislation regarding when overfishing is taking place
or when a stock is overfished. If a
fishery does not meet both of these standards then it is, by definition, not a sustainable
fishery. This is typically determined by
federal or state scientific stock assessments through an independent peer
review process in a transparent manner. Provided
the providence of products from sustainable fisheries is made clear in the labelling
by indicating the fishery geographic stock location, scientific species name
and capture gear type, the consumer has sufficient information to make an
informed decision.
Typically MSC accredited consulting companies do no new
analysis in reaching their sustainability determination. Rather, they piggy-back on the federal or
state scientific assessment, adding additional qualitative insights regarding
ecological impact of the fishery and governance considerations. In an MSC assessment a fishery on an
overfished stock or a fishery that is overfishing the stock can be granted “conditional”
sustainability certification and can carry the MSC eco-label provided it has
plans to become sustainable with regard to the MSC standard within a prescribed
period. Thus a fishery can be deemed provisionally
sustainable under MSC while considered unsustainable under USA or NZ federal standards.
Does the MSC label provide sufficient information for the consumer
to make a wise choice? Typically it does
not. There are 5 choices of text that
MSC provides to accompany their blue eco-label.
None of these contain any information on the geographic stock location
of the fishery, the scientific name of the species, or the fishing gear used. There is also nothing to distinguish
fisheries that have conditional sustainability certification from those that
meet all the MSC criteria. Consumers must take the MSC eco-label on faith
or visit the MSC website and do their own research to determine these important
details.
Marine fish stocks are a public resource and it is the
responsibility of governments to manage this resource for long term public
good. Nations like the USA and NZ are
well advanced in this regard and don’t have need of third party
eco-certification to augment their own legislation, policy and procedures. They only need to work on improving the
communication of this information to the public. Detailed product labelling, including whether
or not the product meets both sustainability criteria (not overfished and
overfishing not taking place), would allow consumers to make wise choices on
sustainable seafood.
