About The Marine Stewardship Council
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View About The Marine Stewardship Council as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,772
- Pages: 3
FISH
About the Marine Stewardship Council Fact Sheet • February 2011
T
he Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) was first conceived in 19961 as an ecolabeling and certification program. Its purpose was to let consumers know which fisheries are considered “sustainable” based on a set of criteria, and therefore which seafood items are more eco-friendly choices. It was co-founded by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international conservation organization, and Unilever, a multinational corporation that was once one of the largest seafood manufacturers in the world.2 The MSC became independent in 19993 and has certified 102 fisheries, with 144 more in assessment (being reviewed) as of February 2011.4 Although the MSC represents a step toward promoting consumer awareness about seafood sources and production, it is not always a reliable indicator of best choices. In fact, controversial certifications to the MSC standard — such as New Zealand hoki, Alaska pollock and Antarctic krill — have caused the organization to lose credibility among several prominent marine scientists and conservation groups.5
Eco-Label or Marketing Label? The MSC struggled at first to attain legitimacy as a certifier of sustainable fisheries. It certified only 22 fisheries worldwide in its first seven years of activity (from 2000 through 2006).6 But the label received criticism over the fisheries it had certified and whether its certification truly demonstrated sustainability.7 Since then, the organization has sped up its pace, certifying another 80 fisheries in the last five years, with some focus on larger, more industrial fisheries like Alaska pollock. But the organization remains vulnerable to criticism from many interests.8 The MSC’s organizational model has been called corporate and inaccessible, and also criticized for not allowing sufficient input by fisheries stakeholders — especially the smaller fishing communities that may not be able to afford to pay fees associated with a formal assessment of their fisheries.9 As a result, small but well-managed fisheries can be left out of the certification process.
A copy of the logo which designates MSC-certified fish.
Furthermore, some fisheries that are not widely considered ecologically sustainable earn and keep the MSC label. One example of this is Alaska pollock, which first received an MSC label in 2005.10 An extremely large fishery, Alaska pollock historically has constituted more than 40 percent of global whitefish production.11 Given that MSC earns more each time their label is used, certification of Alaskan pollock may have represented a major boost to the organization’s seafood repertoire and budget. However, when the fishery came up for re-evaluation in 2009, the population of Alaska pollock had declined significantly.12 This may be an indication that the population is suffering from increas-
ing fishing pressure, possibly brought on by MSC’s “sustainability” label. In addition to the declining stock size, concerns with the commercial Alaska pollock fishery include impacts on native Alaskan communities, endangered Steller sea lions and local Chinook salmon populations. Many organizations submitted comments in early 2010 urging the evaluators to revise the certification of the Alaska pollock fishery, several of them urging that the fishery not be re-certified.13 But despite the many concerns that were raised and a formal objections process, the MSC certification was deemed valid by the certifying authority in December 2010, and Alaska pollock will remain covered by the MSC label.14 The large volume and notoriety of the Alaska pollock fishery prompts speculation that the MSC might have an overwhelming desire to continue its existing relationship with this fishery, despite it likely not meeting certain MSC criteria for certification.
The Privatization of Seafood Regulation Of equal concern to the MSC’s spotty environmental record is its tendency to take control of fisheries resources away from national governments — a subject that is especially sensitive in developing countries. As one study finds, “the MSC reregulates the coordination of the global fisheries away from public venues and into private arenas.”15 Using market-driven mechanisms coordinated by the “largest transnational environmental organization in the world,” the MSC “bypasses national laws and marginalizes fisherpeople,” according to critics.16 When regulation of fisheries falls under private control, both consumers and coastal communities may suffer. Private control may yield less transparency in the management of a natural resource that is part of the public trust — and a resource that many
people depend upon for their livelihoods. Further, consumers may someday find that there is reduced access in the marketplace to fisheries that aren’t certified.
Aquaculture and the MSC The MSC has recently begun certifying forage fisheries that can be used as feed in carnivorous fish farming and has encouraged such fisheries to apply for certification. The organization’s chief executive, Rupert Howes, stated in 2007 that the move was intended to respond to the growing importance of aquaculture in the world market.17 To support this new endeavor, the Gulf of California sardine fishery in Mexico — a fishery in which 85 percent of the catch is reduced to fishmeal — entered into the assessment process for MSC certification.18 Meanwhile, in 2010, the organization certified Antarctic krill — another popular feed-grade fish in fish feeds — despite recent data indicating that these tiny shrimp-like creatures are highly sensitive to climate change and their populations may be declining over time. Considering certification for a forage fishery sets a dangerous new precedent for the organization. Forage fish are at the base of the food chain, which means that many other species depend on them as a primary food source. If they become overfished, there is a much higher risk of negative ecological impact to other species. Furthermore, certifying a forage fishery with intent to feed the end product (usually fish meal or fish oil) to farmed fish is inherently unsustainable: It can take about two to six pounds of wild fish to produce just one pound of some farmed fish, and much more for larger fish, like tuna.19 There is some concern that aquaculture companies that use MSC-certified feeds might try to exaggerate the sustainability of carnivorous fish farming because of their association with MSC.
Meanwhile, in January 2009, WWF announced the creation of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), a certifying body like the MSC that will certify farmed fish that meet its standards.20 The ASC’s recently appointed development director is a former executive of a large producer of farmed salmon — generally, one of aquaculture’s dirtiest industries — and also a former executive at several fish feed manufacturers.21 This raises questions about how reliable — and objective — the new certification for farmed fish will be.
Conclusion Currently, there is no “one-size-fits-all” shortcut for consumers to find sustainable seafood just by looking for a logo on the package. The best approach is to learn more about which types of seafood are available in your region and which are truly well-managed. To make collecting good information about fish easier, see Food & Water Watch’s Smart Seafood Guide at bit.ly/seafood-guide.
Endnotes 1
Constance, Douglas H., and Alessandro Bonanno. “Regulating the global fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever and the Marine Stewardship Council.” Agriculture and Human Values, 17. June 2000 at 125. 2 Unilever sold its seafood business in August of 2001, but before that, it was one of the world’s largest buyers of frozen fish, with a 25% share of the European and United States markets; it also managed several fishmeal and fish oil companies. Constance, Douglas H., and Alessandro Bonanno. “Regulating the global fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever and the Marine Stewardship Council.” Agriculture and Human Values, 17. June 2000 at 125 and 129; and “Unilever sells seafood business.” Food Navigator August 17, 2001. 3 Ponte, Stefano. “Greener than Thou: The political economy of fish eco-labeling and its local manifestations in South Africa.” World Development 36, 1. January 2008 at 161. 4 Marine Stewardship Council. “Certified fisheries,” and “Fisheries in assessment,” accessed February 17, 2011, available at http://www. msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified and http://www.msc.org/track-afishery/in-assessment 5 Schwarz, Walter. “Protection not perfection.” The Guardian (U.K.). 10 March, 2004; and Highleyman, Scott, et al. Wildhavens. “An Independent Assessment of the Marine Stewardship Council.” January 2004 at iv; and Jacquet, Jennifer et al. “Opinion: Seafood stewardship in crisis.” Nature 467 (2 September 2010) at 28-29. 6 The Marine Stewardship Council became independent in 1999, and its first certified fishery was awarded in March 2000. Marine Stewardship Council. “Net Benefits: The First 10 Years of MSC-certified sustainable fisheries.” 2009 at page 8; and Ward, Trevor J. “Barriers to biodiversity conservation in marine fishery certification.” Fish and Fisheries, 9. June 2008 at 172. 7 Brown, Paul. “Crisis of credibility for ‘green’ fisheries.” The Guardian (U.K.). 21 Feb 2004; and Highleyman, Scott, et al. Wildhavens, Turnstone Consulting and Ecos Corporation. “An Independent Assessment of the Marine Stewardship Council.” Prepared for Homeland Foundation, Oak Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts. January 2004. 8 As of February 17, 2011, the MSC has certified 102 fisheries, which means that 80 fisheries have been certified since January 1, 2007. Brown, “Crisis of credibility”; and Greenpeace, “Assessment of the Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Certification Programme,” June 2009. 9 Ponte, Stefano. “Greener than Thou: The political economy of fish eco-labeling and its local manifestations in South Africa.” World Development 36, 1. January 2008 at 163. 10 Chaffee, Chet, et al. Scientific Certification Systems, Inc. “MSC Assessment Report: The United States Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pollock Fishery.” Version SCS_V4FR_021505, February 15, 2005. Available at www.msc.org
11 Ianelli, James N., et al. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. “Chapter 1: Assessment of the walleye pollock stock in the Eastern Bering Sea.” December 2009 at 32. 12 Ibid. at 65. 13 Rice, Jake et al, Moody Marine Ltd. “MSC Final Report for The Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) Fishery.” Version 4: Final Report. July 2010. 14 Rice, Jake, et al. Moody Marine Ltd. “MSC Public Certification Report for The Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) Fishery.” Version 5, December 2010. Available at www. msc.org 15 Constance, Douglas H., and Alessandro Bonanno. “Regulating the global fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever and the Marine Stewardship Council.” Agriculture and Human Values, 17. June 2000 at 134. 16 Ibid. at 133, 135. 17 Howes, Rupert. “Sustainability is in everyone’s interest.” Fish Information and Services. June 15 2007. 18 Ibid. 19 For more details on fish feed conversion rates, see “Fishy Farms: The Problems with Open Ocean Aquaculture.” Food & Water Watch. October 2007 at page 3. 20 World Wildlife Fund for Nature. “WWF to help fund creation of Aquaculture Stewardship Council.” January 27, 2009. Available at http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2009/WWFPresitem11339.html 21 Seafood Source, “ASC appoints development director,” September 3 2009.
For more information: web: www.foodandwaterwatch.org email: [email protected] phone: (202) 683-2500 (DC) • (415) 293-9900 (CA) Copyright © February 2011 Food & Water Watch
About the Marine Stewardship Council Fact Sheet • February 2011
T
he Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) was first conceived in 19961 as an ecolabeling and certification program. Its purpose was to let consumers know which fisheries are considered “sustainable” based on a set of criteria, and therefore which seafood items are more eco-friendly choices. It was co-founded by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international conservation organization, and Unilever, a multinational corporation that was once one of the largest seafood manufacturers in the world.2 The MSC became independent in 19993 and has certified 102 fisheries, with 144 more in assessment (being reviewed) as of February 2011.4 Although the MSC represents a step toward promoting consumer awareness about seafood sources and production, it is not always a reliable indicator of best choices. In fact, controversial certifications to the MSC standard — such as New Zealand hoki, Alaska pollock and Antarctic krill — have caused the organization to lose credibility among several prominent marine scientists and conservation groups.5
Eco-Label or Marketing Label? The MSC struggled at first to attain legitimacy as a certifier of sustainable fisheries. It certified only 22 fisheries worldwide in its first seven years of activity (from 2000 through 2006).6 But the label received criticism over the fisheries it had certified and whether its certification truly demonstrated sustainability.7 Since then, the organization has sped up its pace, certifying another 80 fisheries in the last five years, with some focus on larger, more industrial fisheries like Alaska pollock. But the organization remains vulnerable to criticism from many interests.8 The MSC’s organizational model has been called corporate and inaccessible, and also criticized for not allowing sufficient input by fisheries stakeholders — especially the smaller fishing communities that may not be able to afford to pay fees associated with a formal assessment of their fisheries.9 As a result, small but well-managed fisheries can be left out of the certification process.
A copy of the logo which designates MSC-certified fish.
Furthermore, some fisheries that are not widely considered ecologically sustainable earn and keep the MSC label. One example of this is Alaska pollock, which first received an MSC label in 2005.10 An extremely large fishery, Alaska pollock historically has constituted more than 40 percent of global whitefish production.11 Given that MSC earns more each time their label is used, certification of Alaskan pollock may have represented a major boost to the organization’s seafood repertoire and budget. However, when the fishery came up for re-evaluation in 2009, the population of Alaska pollock had declined significantly.12 This may be an indication that the population is suffering from increas-
ing fishing pressure, possibly brought on by MSC’s “sustainability” label. In addition to the declining stock size, concerns with the commercial Alaska pollock fishery include impacts on native Alaskan communities, endangered Steller sea lions and local Chinook salmon populations. Many organizations submitted comments in early 2010 urging the evaluators to revise the certification of the Alaska pollock fishery, several of them urging that the fishery not be re-certified.13 But despite the many concerns that were raised and a formal objections process, the MSC certification was deemed valid by the certifying authority in December 2010, and Alaska pollock will remain covered by the MSC label.14 The large volume and notoriety of the Alaska pollock fishery prompts speculation that the MSC might have an overwhelming desire to continue its existing relationship with this fishery, despite it likely not meeting certain MSC criteria for certification.
The Privatization of Seafood Regulation Of equal concern to the MSC’s spotty environmental record is its tendency to take control of fisheries resources away from national governments — a subject that is especially sensitive in developing countries. As one study finds, “the MSC reregulates the coordination of the global fisheries away from public venues and into private arenas.”15 Using market-driven mechanisms coordinated by the “largest transnational environmental organization in the world,” the MSC “bypasses national laws and marginalizes fisherpeople,” according to critics.16 When regulation of fisheries falls under private control, both consumers and coastal communities may suffer. Private control may yield less transparency in the management of a natural resource that is part of the public trust — and a resource that many
people depend upon for their livelihoods. Further, consumers may someday find that there is reduced access in the marketplace to fisheries that aren’t certified.
Aquaculture and the MSC The MSC has recently begun certifying forage fisheries that can be used as feed in carnivorous fish farming and has encouraged such fisheries to apply for certification. The organization’s chief executive, Rupert Howes, stated in 2007 that the move was intended to respond to the growing importance of aquaculture in the world market.17 To support this new endeavor, the Gulf of California sardine fishery in Mexico — a fishery in which 85 percent of the catch is reduced to fishmeal — entered into the assessment process for MSC certification.18 Meanwhile, in 2010, the organization certified Antarctic krill — another popular feed-grade fish in fish feeds — despite recent data indicating that these tiny shrimp-like creatures are highly sensitive to climate change and their populations may be declining over time. Considering certification for a forage fishery sets a dangerous new precedent for the organization. Forage fish are at the base of the food chain, which means that many other species depend on them as a primary food source. If they become overfished, there is a much higher risk of negative ecological impact to other species. Furthermore, certifying a forage fishery with intent to feed the end product (usually fish meal or fish oil) to farmed fish is inherently unsustainable: It can take about two to six pounds of wild fish to produce just one pound of some farmed fish, and much more for larger fish, like tuna.19 There is some concern that aquaculture companies that use MSC-certified feeds might try to exaggerate the sustainability of carnivorous fish farming because of their association with MSC.
Meanwhile, in January 2009, WWF announced the creation of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), a certifying body like the MSC that will certify farmed fish that meet its standards.20 The ASC’s recently appointed development director is a former executive of a large producer of farmed salmon — generally, one of aquaculture’s dirtiest industries — and also a former executive at several fish feed manufacturers.21 This raises questions about how reliable — and objective — the new certification for farmed fish will be.
Conclusion Currently, there is no “one-size-fits-all” shortcut for consumers to find sustainable seafood just by looking for a logo on the package. The best approach is to learn more about which types of seafood are available in your region and which are truly well-managed. To make collecting good information about fish easier, see Food & Water Watch’s Smart Seafood Guide at bit.ly/seafood-guide.
Endnotes 1
Constance, Douglas H., and Alessandro Bonanno. “Regulating the global fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever and the Marine Stewardship Council.” Agriculture and Human Values, 17. June 2000 at 125. 2 Unilever sold its seafood business in August of 2001, but before that, it was one of the world’s largest buyers of frozen fish, with a 25% share of the European and United States markets; it also managed several fishmeal and fish oil companies. Constance, Douglas H., and Alessandro Bonanno. “Regulating the global fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever and the Marine Stewardship Council.” Agriculture and Human Values, 17. June 2000 at 125 and 129; and “Unilever sells seafood business.” Food Navigator August 17, 2001. 3 Ponte, Stefano. “Greener than Thou: The political economy of fish eco-labeling and its local manifestations in South Africa.” World Development 36, 1. January 2008 at 161. 4 Marine Stewardship Council. “Certified fisheries,” and “Fisheries in assessment,” accessed February 17, 2011, available at http://www. msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified and http://www.msc.org/track-afishery/in-assessment 5 Schwarz, Walter. “Protection not perfection.” The Guardian (U.K.). 10 March, 2004; and Highleyman, Scott, et al. Wildhavens. “An Independent Assessment of the Marine Stewardship Council.” January 2004 at iv; and Jacquet, Jennifer et al. “Opinion: Seafood stewardship in crisis.” Nature 467 (2 September 2010) at 28-29. 6 The Marine Stewardship Council became independent in 1999, and its first certified fishery was awarded in March 2000. Marine Stewardship Council. “Net Benefits: The First 10 Years of MSC-certified sustainable fisheries.” 2009 at page 8; and Ward, Trevor J. “Barriers to biodiversity conservation in marine fishery certification.” Fish and Fisheries, 9. June 2008 at 172. 7 Brown, Paul. “Crisis of credibility for ‘green’ fisheries.” The Guardian (U.K.). 21 Feb 2004; and Highleyman, Scott, et al. Wildhavens, Turnstone Consulting and Ecos Corporation. “An Independent Assessment of the Marine Stewardship Council.” Prepared for Homeland Foundation, Oak Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts. January 2004. 8 As of February 17, 2011, the MSC has certified 102 fisheries, which means that 80 fisheries have been certified since January 1, 2007. Brown, “Crisis of credibility”; and Greenpeace, “Assessment of the Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Certification Programme,” June 2009. 9 Ponte, Stefano. “Greener than Thou: The political economy of fish eco-labeling and its local manifestations in South Africa.” World Development 36, 1. January 2008 at 163. 10 Chaffee, Chet, et al. Scientific Certification Systems, Inc. “MSC Assessment Report: The United States Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pollock Fishery.” Version SCS_V4FR_021505, February 15, 2005. Available at www.msc.org
11 Ianelli, James N., et al. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. “Chapter 1: Assessment of the walleye pollock stock in the Eastern Bering Sea.” December 2009 at 32. 12 Ibid. at 65. 13 Rice, Jake et al, Moody Marine Ltd. “MSC Final Report for The Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) Fishery.” Version 4: Final Report. July 2010. 14 Rice, Jake, et al. Moody Marine Ltd. “MSC Public Certification Report for The Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) Fishery.” Version 5, December 2010. Available at www. msc.org 15 Constance, Douglas H., and Alessandro Bonanno. “Regulating the global fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever and the Marine Stewardship Council.” Agriculture and Human Values, 17. June 2000 at 134. 16 Ibid. at 133, 135. 17 Howes, Rupert. “Sustainability is in everyone’s interest.” Fish Information and Services. June 15 2007. 18 Ibid. 19 For more details on fish feed conversion rates, see “Fishy Farms: The Problems with Open Ocean Aquaculture.” Food & Water Watch. October 2007 at page 3. 20 World Wildlife Fund for Nature. “WWF to help fund creation of Aquaculture Stewardship Council.” January 27, 2009. Available at http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2009/WWFPresitem11339.html 21 Seafood Source, “ASC appoints development director,” September 3 2009.
For more information: web: www.foodandwaterwatch.org email: [email protected] phone: (202) 683-2500 (DC) • (415) 293-9900 (CA) Copyright © February 2011 Food & Water Watch
Related Documents
About The Marine Stewardship Council
July 2020 7
Deforestation & The Forest Stewardship Council
August 2019 21
About The Council
June 2020 7
Marine
November 2019 48
Marine
October 2019 43
Marine
November 2019 44More Documents from ""
Why Water Bottlers Are Bad For Your Community
June 2020 3
Vermont - Brands And Products With No Rgbh
April 2020 5
