MSC – Controlling the medium controlling the message?

Although technically a non-profit, the Marine Stewardship Council is a for-profit organization – the profit being used to expand the scope and influence of the Council. 

A new area of expansion is the creation of an online fisheries science research library.

http://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/msc-launches-fisheries-science-research-library

The “library” is essentially a new eJournal called “MSC Science Series”.  It will be published biannually and the first volume is now online.

http://www.msc.org/business-support/science-series/volume-01-1

The MSC Science Series provides a medium for publishing the results of MSC funded research related to the MSC standard for sustainable fisheries and marine ecosystems.  The review and editorial panels comprise mainly MSC staffers and insiders.

Fisheries and marine ecosystem sciences are already well served by a number of online scientific journals, both those with a long-standing tradition in paper form and a number of recently added eJournals. 

These journals pride themselves on having independent and objective peer review processes.  It is questionable whether there is a real need for a new eJournal, particularly one in which the review and editorial process is tightly controlled by the hosting organization.

Informed criticism of the MSC process has come mainly from fisheries scientists and ecologists who have questioned the data, methods and results of some MSC sustainability determinations.  A number of these have been published in independent peer reviewed journals.  In contrast, there have been few papers in support of the MSC approach written by scientists who are completely independent of the MSC process.

Rather than working on establishing the scientific legitimacy of its data, methods and results through the existing independent peer reviewed literature, the MSC is hoping to further its cause by creating a quasi-scientific medium in which the message will be closely controlled and favourable to the MSC. 

In some ways this is similar to another MSC institution, the quasi-legal Objections Procedure in which “Independent Adjudicators” hired by MSC to adjudicate on objections to MSC sustainability determinations invariably decide in favor of the MSC and against the objectors. 

Ironically, the objectors are typically groups and associations of scientists and environmentalists citing information published in the peer reviewed scientific literature!

Fisheries Ministers lost their authority to MSC in a coup de'etat in 2008?

Dr. Doug Butterworth, a retired academic and fisheries consultant from a South African university, recently made the claim at an international marine conference that fisheries ministers around the world lost their authority in a coup de'etat in 2008 when the MSC succeeded in persuading major European supermarkets to only purchase MSC certified products. This claim was made during a key-note address at the September 2013 ICES (International Council for Exploration of the Sea) Annual Science Conference in Reykjavík (min 41:38 onwards)‎.

Butterworth says that prior to this the MSC was in the doldrums but in 2008 there was a quiet revolution in which fisheries ministers did not even realize that they had surrendered their authority on national fisheries policy to the MSC.  Butterworth states that this resulted in an explosion in applications for MSC certification.

Butterworth argues that although MSC is only dealing with 10% of the World's fisheries, the process is so burdensome that it is draining scientific expertise in stock assessments to produce MSC reviews of variable consistency.  Butterworth claims that the MSC review process is inferior to processes such as the review that takes place in ICES in providing scientific advice on the management of European fish stocks.

This view adds to the debate recently rekindled in Alaska over salmon certification - should MSC be second-guessing national and international processes already in place to provide scientific assessments, review and advice on meeting sustainability criteria?  If ICES scientists provide advice to managers on how to manage a European fishery in a sustainable manner and managers follow this advice, what added value does MSC really have?

US gives the boot to MSC?

Legislation introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska on Sept. 18 would prohibit federal agencies from using certification schemes when considering or labeling any domestic seafood catch as sustainable.

"It is bad federal policy to allow third party certifiers, including foreign non-governmental organizations, to decide what seafood is allowed to be sold in national parks, or procured by federal agencies, Murkowski said.

Not too long ago, wild Alaska salmon served as the flagship species for the London-based Marine Stewardship Council, she said. "Now MSC is disparaging the "sustainability of Alaska salmon. MCS and NGOs like them have political agendas, lack transparency, and use their certification schemes to inappropriately influence federal and state fisheries management."

- See more at: http://www.thecordovatimes.com/article/1338legislation-addresses-seafood-sustainability#sthash.sdNMKVzx.dpuf

Is the Newfoundland Grand Bank shrimp fishery sustainable?

The large boat northern shrimp Pandalus borealis fisheries off the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada) have just received MSC eco-certification as sustainable.  Small boat fisheries on the same stocks were certified sustainable by MSC in 2009 as the “inshore fishery on Canadian northern prawn”. 

The shrimp fishery on the Grand Bank of Newfoundland (NAFO Divisions 3LNO, Canadian Shrimp Fishing Area 7) was considered separately in the certification process because it is a straddling stock that extends beyond the 200nm EEZ and is therefore managed by an RFMO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).

Given the serial depletion of most Grand Bank fisheries through rampant overfishing by Spain, Portugal, Canada and other nations over the last 60 years, one would think that sustainable management of the shrimp fishery by NAFO would be a high priority and that passing MSE certification would be a walk in the park.

Well, it was a walk in the park.  Moody International Marine Ltd., the for-profit consulting company that did the assessment under contract to the fishing industry, awarded the fishery scores of 84.4% for Principle 1 (Sustainability of Exploited Stock), 84% for Principle 2 (Maintenance of Ecosystem) and 81.6% for Principle 3 (Effective Management System). 

There were some low scores within these overall averages that led to conditions being placed on the sustainability determination.  The fishery is certified and products can carry the blue MSC logo, but to ensure ongoing certification MSC requires some progress to be demonstrated in annual audits by Moody towards improving these areas.

So where were some of the low scores?  Harvest control rules and tools – 70%.  Turns out there aren’t any.  Neither are there any exploitation targets or limits.  Fishery specific objectives (management objectives) – 60%.  Again, there aren’t any.

“Decision making processes” got a score of 80% and “Compliance and enforcement” got 90%. This is inconsistent with reality.

Scientific advice on a sustainable TAC for 2009 was 25kt.  NAFO went against the scientific advice and awarded a TAC of 30kt.  Denmark in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland did not agree to their share of the TAC and therefore set their own quota in excess of what they were allocated.  This is allowed under the NAFO Objection Clause.

Scientific advice for 2010 was that the current exploitation rate of 14% may be too high and scientists urged caution in the exploitation of the stock because it was declining.  They advised that exploitation rates should not be raised, but kept below recent levels.  Given that the stock was declining this would require a reduction in the TAC but NAFO decided to keep the TAC at 30kt.  Again the scientific advice was ignored.  Again Denmark in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland set their own quota in excess of their allocation.

Scientific advice for 2011 was that TAC options at 14% exploitation rate or higher would be associated with a relatively high risk of continued stock decline.  A 14% exploitation rate corresponded to a TAC of  17kt.  NAFO set the TAC for 2011 at 19.2kt.  Again the scientific advice was ignored.

The biomass of shrimp halved between 2007 and 2009.  This decline is expected to continue unless NAFO reduces the TAC in accordance with the scientific advice.  It doesn’t look like this is going to happen before it is too late…again.

How can this fishery be considered sustainable?  

Turtles and sustainable swordfish

The Marine Stewardship Council deadline for stakeholder comments on the draft sustainability assessment report for the Canadian swordfish longline fishery is just days away. 

Although there are inadequacies in the scientific assessment of the swordfish stock and the management of the fishery by both ICCAT and Canada, swordfish are considered to be at or above the biomass that gives maximum sustainable yield and fishing mortality is below the level that achieves maximum sustainable yield.  In US fishery parlance, the stock is not overfished and neither is overfishing taking place.  On the face of it the primary requirements for consideration as a sustainable fishery under international best practices are met.

The big issue is bycatch of other species such as turtles and sharks. 

Concern is greatest for the loggerhead sea turtle.  Estimated bycatch in the Canadian pelagic longline fishery is about 1,200 turtles annually out of a population of 17,000.  This species was determined by COSEWIC to be endangered in Canada in April 2010 because it is “declining globally and there are well documented, ongoing declines in the Northwest Atlantic population from which juveniles routinely enter and forage in Atlantic Canadian waters. The Canadian population is threatened directly by commercial fishing, particularly bycatch in the pelagic longline fleet, and by loss and degradation of nesting beaches in the southeastern USA and the Caribbean.”

A decision by the Canadian Government on whether or not to list loggerheads under the Species at Risk Act has yet to be made.  In its initial response on December 2010, Government stated that “A voluntary Code of Conduct for Responsible Sea Turtle Handling and Mitigative Measures has been developed by the Canadian swordfish and tuna pelagic longline fleet.  This Code of Conduct includes measures such as avoiding areas of high sea turtle capture rates, gear hauling protocols to minimise harm to turtles, sea turtle handling guidelines, and usage instructions for de-hooking gear.”

A Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans recovery potential assessment published in 2010 found that “Reduction or elimination of mortality in Canadian waters alone is highly unlikely to be sufficient to achieve recovery.” 

Although not the sole culprit, and despite efforts being made in Canada to reduce bycatch and increase survival of released loggerheads, the Canadian longline swordfish fishery is contributing significantly to the potential extinction of loggerheads.

The Canadian harpoon fishery for swordfish has zero bycatch mortality and provides a certified sustainable alternative source for consumers to consider.

Marine Stewardship Council - Acceptable time frames for rebuilding depleted fish stocks

In the fall of 2010 MSC consulted with partners and stakeholders on acceptable rebuilding timeframes for certification of depleted stocks.  MSC defines a depleted stock as one which has a biomass below BMSY (the biomass that gives maximum sustainable yield) or equivalent target level, but is still above a precautionary limit level. Fisheries on stocks which are depleted can become MSC certified, however certification of such fisheries requires that there be a rebuilding plan in place which leads to the recovery of the stock within a specified timeframe.

The MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology addresses rebuilding under Performance Indicator PI 1.1.3.  Currently, a conditional pass score of SG60 merely requires “reasonable expectation of success” with regard to rebuilding to the target biomass of BMSY within a specified timeframe.  

An unconditional pass of SG80 requires evidence that rebuilding strategies “are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe”.

A perfect score of SG100 requires that “strategies are demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the shortest practicable timeframe”.

It is good that MSC is considering revising its methodology with regard to depleted stocks; however the consultation document only addresses a clearer definition of the timeframes for rebuilding to be associated with each of the three scores.

MSC certification of fisheries on depleted stocks as “sustainable” is highly controversial.  See for example the ongoing saga of the conditional certification of the fishery on the collapsed offshore South African hake stock. 

It can be argued that the current SG100 requirement should be the minimum required in order for a fishery to be considered for a conditional pass score (SG60) and that an unconditional pass score (SG80 or 100) should only be given to a fishery on stock that has already rebuilt and is fluctuating around BMSY or above under a fishing mortality of FMSY or lower (the fishing mortality rate consistent with maintaining the stock at BMSY or above).

A fishery on a depleted stock should never be considered sustainable.   

Seafood eco-labelling criticised

An interesting article by Clare Leschin-Hoar on the website slashfood.com on 8 December draws attention to a recent publication by Food and Water Watch on De-Coding Seafood Eco-Labels: Why We Need Public Standards.

Clare notes that among the concerns expressed by Food and Water Watch are the certification of fisheries that have only pledged improvements over ones that meet all criteria, the high costs of certification which leads to a pay-to-play environment, and the predominant use of labels as marketing tools.  Concern is also expressed about groups such as the Marine Stewardship Council setting sustainability standards rather than governments.

Aker Biomarine krill based profits up

Recently MSC certified as sustainable, the Aker Biomarine profits are up based on products from its krill fishery in the Antarctic according to a report on  SeafoodSource.com today

By SeafoodSource staff 
06 August, 2010 - Oslo, Norway-based krill harvester and biotechnology group Aker Biomarine posted a quarterly profit for the first time thanks to a strong harvest and strong sales of its omega-3 fatty acid-rich products for human consumption.

What price does one put on preserving the Antarctic foodchain? 

MSC sockeye salmon certification - who profits?

The David Suzuki Foundation has just produced a useful backgrounder on the controversial Marine Stewardship Council certification of BC sockeye salmon.
 
The backgrounder states that The Marine Stewardship Council eco-label allows certified fisheries to brand themselves as a “sustainable” source of seafood. Fisheries voluntarily apply for certification, and they do so by hiring a for-profit company to carry out the assessment.

While I don't profess to understand the whole MSC process, some additional information might be useful for those not familiar with the relationship between MSC as a non-profit organization and the profit-maximising companies that do the actual assessments.

MSC provides a Fishery Standard containing Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing as well as a manual of Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance to Certification Bodies Including Default Assessment Tree and Risk-Based Framework.  Only companies that are accredited by Accreditation Services International GmbH (ASI) to the MSC accreditation requirements can do fishery sustainability certification assessments under the MSC process.  These companies apply the MSC Standard and use the MSC Methods and Guidance manual to do the actual assessments and determine certifiable fisheries.

The MSC website gives the following list of accredited certifiers:

• Det Norske Veritas Certification AS
• Food Certification International Ltd (FCI)
• Global Trust Certifications Ltd (Previously I:FQC Ltd)
• MacAlister Elliott & Partners Ltd
• Moody Marine Ltd
• MRAG Americas
• Organización Internacional Agropecuaria (OIA)
• Scientific Certification Systems
• Tavel Certification Inc.
• TQCSI - MSC

This is not completely up-to-date because Moody Marine Ltd (which has carried out a number of MSC assessments) recently acquired one of the competition, Tavel Certification Inc.

What is important here is that the accredited certifiers are all  companies seeking to maximise profits through the MSC sustainability and eco-labelling system.  To be competitive they can vary the fee they charge fishing enterprises seeking certification and then seek ways to cut the costs of doing the actual certification. One of the costs to the certifier involves hiring outside experts to assist with the assessments because of limited in-house expertise, and to do independent reviews of draft assessments.  These experts include government fisheries scientists and academics who may already be involved in advising governments and RFMOs on the sustainable management of  various fisheries.

As a non-profit, MSC is funded by donation and by the fee it charges components of the supply chain for displaying its blue eco-label. Note that some enterprises that achieve certification choose not to actually use the MSC eco-label in order to avoid paying the fee.  MSC also runs a second process for "Chain of Custody certifications" in which an overlapping list of companies are accredited to certify businesses that meet the MSC Chain of Custody standard for seafood traceability. A further source of income to MSC is the objection process.  Bodies filing an objection (usually conservation organizations funded by private donations) are charged a significant fee by MSC which presumably partly offsets the salaries they pay to four lawyers who are retained as "independent adjudicators" to judge the validity of objections.
 

 

 

 

All objections to Fraser Sockeye Salmon MSC certification dismissed

In his ruling handed down July 12 2010, Independent Adjudicator Wylie Spicer, Q.C., dismissed all objections to the MSC certification of the Fraser River Sockeye Salmon as sustainable. Certification will now proceed and the BC Salmon Marketing Council can apply the blue MSC sustainability label to all products from the Fraser River sockeye fishery. The objections were filed jointly by the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, David Suzuki Foundation and the Skeena Wild Conservation Trust.

This is Spicer’s first adjudication in his new job on salary to MSC. In his findings, he sets the tone early on by stating that “Other IA’s, in recent decisions, recognizing the purpose of the OP [Objection Procedure], have described the standard of review available as being “narrow” and requiring “deference to the determinations of the certification body” (Ross Sea Antarctic Toothfish Longline Fishery decision at para. 8).”

Further into his report Spicer notes that the Objector’s arguments “are really taking issue with whether the Fraser River Fishery can stand up to scrutiny given the MSC Principles and Criteria.” He notes that “this type of review is not the purpose of the OP. The purpose of the OP is to review the work of the CB [Certification Body] to see whether it made an error that materially affected the outcome of the Determination.”

Within this narrow ambit of the OP, Spicer finds that no such errors were made. Procedures were followed and the scores are justified.

For those of us that value our children’s future more than MSC procedures and the short-term economic benefits accrued by the BC Salmon Marketing Council, there are some major concerns with this certification.

Firstly, the productivity of Fraser River salmon is in free-fall as pointed out by the “Think Tank of Scientists” that met in December 2009 at Simon Fraser University: “The productivity of the Fraser river sockeye salmon, which is the number of adults produced per spawner, has been declining since the mid-1990s to the point where Fraser River sockeye are almost unable to replace themselves.” No matter what scoring guideposts were set up and what scores were allocated by the Moody Marine assessment team, a population that is “almost unable to replace itself” cannot be considered a candidate for a sustainable fishery.

Secondly, two distinct genetic components of Fraser sockeye, those spawning in Cultus Lake and Sakinaw Lake, have been found to be endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The Canadian government however decided not to list them under the Species at Risk Act, citing socio-economic considerations.  Listing would have mandated an explicit rebuilding strategy. The continuing loss of biodiversity should be a major concern for those that care about our planet’s future.

So, MSC adds another controversial certification to their growing list, the perfect record of all objections to any assessment being dismissed is retained, and public confidence in the process, and hence the value of the MSC label, is diminished.

MSC eco-certified fish are not necessarily from sustainable ecosystems

An interesting posting Fishy branding - the ecosystem behind the label by Sally Campbell on the Community of Arran Seabed Trust looks behind MSC-accreditation and explores some of the emerging problems with our new hunger for ‘sustainable’ labelling.

Campbell writes "It underlines a real concern that many of the MSC eco-certified fish are not necessarily from sustainable ecosystems. Certifiers are accredited by Accreditation Services International GmbH (ASI) to the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Accreditation requirements. Companies such as Moody Marine Ltd and MRAG Americas, Inc can certify that fisheries meet the MSC environmental standard for sustainable fishing and these organisations duly undertake a programmed check on those fisheries wishing to have the Blue Label from MSC. It was following such a review by a these external organisations that the Cape Hake was re-certified, and the collapsed state of the fishery was even pointed out by the independent reviewer of the certification."

Verdict out - Antarctic krill fishery is sustainable because MSC says so

Yesterday (25 May 2010) MSC released the legally sounding "Supplemental Decision of the Independent Adjudicator on Remand in the Matter of an Objection to the Final Report and Determination of the Proposed Certification of the Aker Biomarine Antarctic Krill Fishery under the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing".

The "Decision" is by the Independent Adjudicator (on staff to MSC) - lawyer Eldon V.C. Greenberg.

In his 4 page ruling he reaches the conclusion "In sum, after consideration of Moody's Response to Additional Remand, I conclude that the response is "adequate to meet the matters raised in the remand" within the meaning of Section 4.9.4(a) of the Objections Procedure, and I confirm the determination of the certification body with respect to PIs 1.2.2 and 2.5.3. I conclude that Moody has cured the procedural defect identified in my remand of May 5, 2010 and provided a reasonable explanation for its decision not to alter the scoring of the PIs in question in light of Watters 2009."

See post on this blog on May 7 for background

So Moody wins another one and MSC can check an additional sustainable fishery to its growing world-wide list.

But what do conservation bodies think?  The influential Pew Environmental Group does not like it one little bit.  The Pew Environment Group is the conservation arm of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a US-based non-governmental organization that applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improving public policy, informing the public and stimulating civic life.

PR Newswire reports that "The Pew Environment Group today criticized the decision by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) to certify Antarctic krill. The certification gives the false impression that the entire fishery for Antarctic krill is sustainable when in reality it is not."

Gerald Leape, director of Pew's Antarctic Krill Conservation Project (AKCP) points out the main grounds for objecting to the certification of the Aker krill fishery as sustainable:

• MSC's standards allow for the certification of a single operator in a fishery. In general, this runs contrary to its mission of ocean protection. If a few ships are acting responsibly but the vast majority are not, the target population could still be at risk of being overfished.  
• Climate change impacts to species are not considered by MSC methodology. As krill have been proven to be susceptible to climate change, the impact of warming temperatures on the population must be considered, if fishing is to be sustainable.
• Numerous uncertainties are associated with the determinants and drivers of krill population size. Though extensively studied, scientists are still learning what affects krill population size. Without this knowledge, it is difficult to set appropriate catch limits.

PR Newswire reports Leape saying: "Unfortunately, perception is reality...The MSC's label falsely advertises the message that all krill are sustainably caught and that consuming krill-based omega 3 supplements or purchasing farmed salmon raised on krill meal is okay. Nothing could be further from the truth."






 

Objection to Antarctic Krill fishery certification as sustainble by MSC

On December 4 2009 the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC, a coalition of over 200 non-governmental organizations in fifty countries concerned with the preservation of the Antarctic environment) filed a notice of objection with MSC regarding the sustainability determination of Moody Marine with regard to the Aker Biomarine Krill Fishery.

The Aker Biomarine pelagic trawl krill fishing fleet is a major participant in the Antarctic krill fishery in Area 48 in the Southern Ocean waters around the Antarctic Peninsula and South Georgia. ASOC and its partner the Pew Antarctic Krill Conservation Project have been advocating for management reforms in the fishery and have concerns about the Aker Biomarine krill fleet’s role in that fishery.

The MSC report by Moody Marine, together with comments from two independent reviewers and Moody’s responses, were published on their website on 6 August 2009.

One of the reviewers, Stephen Nicol, is an acknowledged world expert on krill in the Antarctic. He made a number of critical comments on the report which Moody Marine mostly dismissed. For example, he stated that “There is little doubt that the data being collected are insufficient to detect impacts of fishing – and there is no mechanism to alter the krill management approach even if impacts were detected.” Moody Marine responded that “The reviewer is correct, but his concerns do not render the harvest strategy ineffective, in our opinion.”

In another instance Nicol comments that he is “unaware of any evidence that exists that the [existing management] strategy is effective other than the absence of an obvious stock collapse. Nicol argues for a lowering of the scores in a number of instances, for example “Because of the lack of a mandatory observer scheme, the shortfalls of the CEMP [CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program] and the uncertainties over bycatch it is difficult to see how information/monitoring can be considered adequate.” Again, Moody Marine is dismissive.

Nicol concludes that “Overall, the assessment probably falls somewhat short of what I might hope given the MSC principles. There are two reasons for this. Firstly the operator has a very short history in the krill fishery and has not yet had a chance to establish its credentials or to fully examine the impacts of its new technology [mid-water trawl continuous fishing system]. This suggests to me that this proposal is slightly premature. Secondly, the proposal assumes that the procedures implemented by CCAMLR in pursuit of its ecosystem approach to management are sufficiently robust to enable the krill fishery to meet the MSC criteria.” Moody Marine considers that although “The harvest strategy has not been fully tested, … monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives.”

The outcome of the review resulted in Moody adjusting its scoring as follows:

1.2.1: Score reduced to 90
1.2.2: No change
2.5.1: Score increased to 100
2.5.2: Score reduced to 75
2.5.3: No change

The change in score for PI 2.5.2 has resulted in a new Condition – Condition 3 at the end of this document.

The basis for a 100% score under 2.5.1 is that “There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.” Presumably this increase is necessary to counteract the decrease in the score under 2.5.2.

Overall scores for the fishery are now:
Principle 1: 84
Principle 2: 91
Principle 3: 93

This would therefore maintain the determination that this fishery be certified.

The objection by ASOC noted that the company seeking certification was only one of the operators in fishing krill in the Antarctic and felt that for the MSC label to have any credibility it must reflect the impact of the fishery as a whole.

ASOC also criticized Moody Marine for not paying any attention to a report by Watters et al. (2009) which they suggest demonstrates that “recent risk assessments conducted for the krill fishery clearly show that measures currently in place are not sufficient to prevent irreversible harm to several krill predator populations” [WG-EMM-09/12, George M. Watters, Simeon Hill, Jefferson T. Hinke, and Phil Trathan. The Risks of not Deciding to Allocate the Precautionary Krill Catch Limit among SSMUs and Allowing Uncontrolled Expansion of the Krill Fishery up to the Trigger Level.]

Moody Marine argued that the study conducted by Watters et al. (2009) was produced after their final report was completed, but ASOC claimed that this was incorrect because these findings were highlighted in comments by Antarctic Krill Conservation Project (AKCP) on Moody Marine’s draft report. ASOC claimed that Moody Marine “simply chose not to respond to it, but they had ample opportunity to become familiar with this important document, which is being provided to the Independent Adjudicator and should be a part of the formal record.”

The Independent Adjudicator is lawyer Eldon Greenberg, one of three new lawyers recently appointed under salary to MSC to hear and judge objections. He is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm of Garvey Schubert Barer. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Mr Greenberg was deputy general counsel of the Agency for International Development and general counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the Carter Administration. He specializes in environmental and natural resources issues, including fishery management, marine mammal and endangered species. He also teaches international negotiation as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

Under the MSC “Objections Procedure” a remand can only be ordered where the Independent Adjudicator determines that one or more of the following circumstances apply: (a) There was a serious procedural or other irregularity in the fishery assessment process that made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment; or (b) The score given by the certification body in relation to one or more performance indicators cannot be justified, and this was material to the outcome of the determination; or (c) It is necessary to remand the Determination in order to enable the certification body to consider additional information.

Although the “Objection Procedure”sounds very legal and official, it is difficult to see that it has any real legal standing. There is no contract in existence between MSC and the the resource owners, the civil public, to make any of this legal and binding – it is just a bunch of rules much like in a game of Monopoly.

The ASOC objection is based on three claims (i) Moody has misapplied the MSC principles in relation to the “unit of certification”, contending that the unit of certification must be the entire Antarctic krill fishery; (ii) Moody has incorrectly applied the MSCs procedures in reaching its conclusions; and (iii) The scores given by Moody in relation to a number of the Performance Indicators cannot be justified.
Eldon Greenberg found, in his judgment, that “Moody explicitly addressed the comments of both peer reviewers, including the one who was most critical of the analysis [Steve Nicol], and had made a rational judgment call about what changes should be incorporated in its report.” Greenberg concluded that this satisfies MSC requirements.

While dismissing other claims by ASOC, Greenberg did concede that Moody should have considered the Watters 2009 report because it was available “substantially in advance of completion of the certification body’s final report”. He stated that information brought to light in a timely fashion by commentators on a draft report cannot be ignored and to do so would “diminish the utility and value of the public comment process”.
Greenberg cites the precedent of the Pacific Hake Mid-Water Trawl Fishery decision where the Independent Adjudicator considered whether new material that arose after the draft report had been prepared would have made a “material difference to the fairness of the assessment”.

Without calling any expert scientific experts, Greenberg passes judgment on the contents of the Watters 2009 report and finds that the report “did not conclude that the fishery was not managed in a precautionary manner, but rather that the management system was not “as precautionary” as previously posited in the event of an “uncontrolled expansion” of the fishery.”

Greenberg finally decides on a “limited remand to the certification body to consider Watters 2009 in the context of the specific PIs where ASOC asserts that this study supports its objections to Moody’s scoring”.

Greenberg acknowledges that ASOC levels a “series of weighty arguments against a finding of sustainability” by Moody based on the role of krill in the Antarctic Ecosystem, lack of an adequate management strategy and the large amount of uncertainty and gaps in knowledge. He states that “I cannot (and will not) substitute my judgment for that of the certification body as long as its finding and determinations have a rational basis in the record and the rationale stated is consistent with the facts found here”.

After considering each issue raised by ASOC under each of the PIs through reams of text, Greenberg repeatedly finds that “I am not persuaded that Moody made a mistake of material fact, failed to consider material information, or acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in awarding the score” on each PI element contested by ASOC.

Finally Greenberg concludes that “Having considered the written submissions and supporting documentation of the parties, I find that, with one exception, ASOC’s grounds for objection…have not been established under the Objections Procedure. However, he did find “a serious procedural error” with regard to Moody not taking into account the Watters 2009 report in the scoring of a number of criteria under PIs 1 and 2. Moody now has the opportunity to reflect on the judgment and make changes, if any, in a response to Greenberg after which he will decide whether the objection is upheld or dismissed.

Note that there was no oral hearing in this case. Written submissions were instead considered and no scientific experts were called. This may reduce the considerable cost for leveling an objection imposed by MSC, to be borne by ASOC.

MSC awards re-certification to South African hake

Despite the strong objections of one of the independent reviewers, MSC has just announced that it has decided to re-certify the South African hake fishery:
http://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/south-african-hake-trawl-achieves-re-certification

The offshore hake species and main contributor to this two-species fishery is in a collapsed state and did not improve during the previous certification period.  This was clearly pointed out by the independent reviewer of the assessment but apparently ignored by MSC (see earlier post).  

The MSC website quotes a spokesman for the client group: “Initially we sought certification partly to celebrate the steady, painstaking recovery of domestic hake resources and partly because we wished to pursue a high sustainability standard for the fishery. We have seen, in the last five years, that MSC certification has other benefits: there is commercial advantage by way of access to other markets and buyers that place a premium on a certified product. Personally, the most gratifying benefit is the way in which certification motivates participants. Certification raises awareness of all fishing stakeholders about the need to adopt best practices with a view to the long term future of the hake resource.”

Painstaking recovery?
High sustainability standard for the fishery?
Do the economic benefits of certification outweigh the facts in this case?

You decide.

Canadian Atlantic longline swordfish fishery certification and loggerhead turtles

Eco-certification still being considered even as U.S. proposes to list loggerhead turtles as "endangered"

Link to article on Suzuki Foundation website

MSC extends certification of the South African hake trawl fishery while waiting for delayed reassessment

MSC reports on its website that there have been “unavoidable delays” in the reassessment of the South African hake trawl fishery by Moody Marine. This fishery was first certified as sustainable by MSC in 2004. http://fishyfellow.blogspot.com/2009/10/case-1-cape-hakes.html
MSC has extended certification to the end of March 2010 to allow the ecolabel to continue to hold while the reassessment is completed.

In the reassessment report on the MSC website Moody Marine gives the fishery high passing scores for all three principles and recommends recertification.

The two independent reviewers contracted by Moody were Jake Rice, who is on salary as a bureaucrat with the Canadian federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans headquarters in Ottawa, and Michael Pawson, a stock assessment scientist who recently retired from the famous Lowestoft Fisheries Laboratory.  Rice has had a number of previous MSC-related contracts - he was on the assessment team that led to the controversial certification of South Georgia Patagonian Toothfish fishery and Alaskan Pollock surveillance audits and was part of the MSC Objections Panel for the New Zealand Hoki fishery.

Reviewer A (assumed to be Rice) stated “I find no major points of disagreement with the assessment” while Reviewer B (assumed to be Pawson) found major shortcomings. He states that “I nevertheless consider that some of the marks awarded are too high particularly in relation to the stock status of M. paradoxus (which appears to be in a very depleted state) and the lack of evidence that this has been ameliorated during the certification period …I therefore question the assessment that the overall Performance of the South African Hake Trawl Fishery passes in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3, and that the fishery be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.”

It seems unlikely that Pawson will get another MSC contract!

Pawson’s view that M. paradoxus is in a much depleted state is consistent with the published scientific literature. The fishery comprises two species, an inshore species and an offshore species. The offshore species, M paradoxus is the more important of the two in the trawl fishery. According to a report published in the African Journal of Science in 2008 by Rebecca Rademeyer and coauthors, the offshore hake stock collapsed prior to the last MSC assessment (biomass declined by more than 10% from the unfished state) and has not recovered while being managed by an “Operation Management Procedure” developed by fishery consultants at the University of Cape Town. The MSC report only admits to it being at 15% of the unfished state – nevertheless a severely depleted state.  Commonly fishery management plans assume that the biomass at 20% of the unfished state represents a precautionary approach limit reference point below which fishing should cease completely.

The hope is that a new OMP under development by consultants at the University of Cape Town will be more effective than their previous one in rebuilding the stock.   Maybe, but is that "hope" enough to certify a trawl fishery on a collapsed stock as “sustainable”?

Below are the baseline spawning biomass trajectories for the South African hake from the 2008 paper by Rademeyer

Marine Stewardship Council Loses Its Luster - Full article published by FIS

A "People with opinion" article by Barry Estabrook, formerly a contributing editor at Gourmet Magazine, has jsut been published by FIS.  The article provides an excellent and rational overview of the controversy that MSC is digging itself into with some of the certiciations and recertifications that it is engaged in. 

Read Barry's article here: http://fis.com/fis/people/index.asp?article_id=32&l=e

Marine Stewardship Council Loses Its Luster

From "politics of the plate" by Barry Estabrook

MSC has begun to lose some of its glitter, in the eyes of many of the scientists and environmentalists meeting in Paris Jan 31-Feb 2 at the Seafood Choice’s Alliance’s annual Seafood Summit
http://ow.ly/13WEQ

MSC Certification of Fraser River Sockeye Fishery - ECOFRAUD?

Eco-certification of wild capture fisheries - public resource

Marine fish are considered to be a public resource and generally we would like to see them sustainably managed for long-term public good.

Eco-certification of sustainable fisheries would seem to be one way of achieving this. The idea is that if the public only purchases eco-certified fish products bearing a clear and valid eco-label, then there will be a dissinsentive for the fishing industry to engage in unsustainable fishing practices and for purveyors to deal in unsustainble fish products.

Clearly there are three parties involved in this process - us who want sustainable fisheries (hopefully), the industry that wants to make a profit (of course), and the eco-certifiers who want to make a difference.

The purpose of this blog is to discuss the respective roles of the public, the fishing industry and the eco-certifiers in this process. The most prominent eco-certifier at present is the Marine Stewardship Council: http://www.msc.org/ They have been at it for 10 years and currently have 56 certified fisheries around the globe.

So, how well do we think they are doing? Are all these fisheries really sustainable? How good is the MSC standard? Is certification working? Feel free to contribute your views!