Last week’s Blue Deal Debate (catch up here), which followed an MSC-only ‘debate’ panel as part of the same series earlier in the summer, reflected on the question central to On The Hook’s call for an independent review of the Marine Stewardship Council: are eco-certifications up for the challenge? Our view is that the MSC in its current form is not, and this debate provided a useful overview of some of the overarching concerns and how these might be addressed.
What are eco-certifications?
In the UK alone, we consume £5.7 billion worth of fish and seafood every year, imported from over 85 countries. Nearly a third of all monitored fish stocks are overfished, and over 60% fished at maximum sustainable yield. Eco-certifications purport to offer a market-based mechanism to uphold sustainable practices in fisheries and assure the consumer that their fish or seafood has been sustainably sourced. But, as On The Hook has highlighted, the tiny blue tick plastered across supermarket shelves has become largely meaningless. The so-called gold standard masks inconsistent and inhumane sustainability practices.
The Ocean Vision 2030 panel brought together a wealth of expert knowledge to explore some of these key issues surrounding the MSC ecolabel, touching on transparency, accountability, and whether the very definition of sustainability is being applied in the wrong way. The elephant (not) in the room to defend itself was unfortunately ‘too busy’, despite the panellists emphasising their desire to see constructive engagement rather than a public showdown.
So-called gold standard
Very clear from the debate was MSC’s major transparency issues, an issue which On The Hook has also highlighted repeatedly. Although consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the scale of the problem, due in large part to documentaries such as Seaspiracy, the guarantees provided by ecolabels remain largely unclear. Jakob Surber of Swiss retailer Migros highlighted exactly this: ecolabels ultimately guarantee nothing. They can’t guarantee fish stocks aren’t being depleted in the fishing process, they can’t guarantee there aren’t high levels of bycatch, and they can’t guarantee that shark finning isn’t taking place on fishing vessels. If consumers are to demand change, they must first be able to understand what it is they are demanding but there remains a fundamental mismatch between what ecolabels actually denote and what consumers understand them to denote. Worse still, there are policies and technologies available to help improve transparency on major issues (for example, to address shark finning MSC needs to introduce a Fins Naturally Attached requirement supported by remote electronic monitoring alongside human observers), yet MSC is dragging its feet when it comes to adopting these. There’s nothing gold-standard about being behind the curve…
Conflict of ‘finterest’?
The nature of the MSC model suggests considerable conflicts of interest. To become certified, fisheries pay Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) to assess the sustainability of their fishing operations. There is heavy competition between CABs to secure repeat business for the annual audits and recertifications, meaning that turning a blind eye to bad practice suddenly seems like a good business option. Once a fishery is certified, it may sell products bearing the MSC ecolabel. For every product sold carrying the logo, MSC receives a ‘royalty fee’. With more blue ticks equalling more revenue, it can be suggested that the business case for dropping the bar for certification is far too strong…
Sea Change
Another issue raised both by On The Hook and the panellists during this debate is whether ecolabels actually lead to real change on the water. Shannon Arnold of Ecology Action Centre pointed out that most changes in practice occur during the certification process, but those fisheries tend to stagnate once they’ve been granted their label. Fisheries do not have to fully meet all the criteria to be given certification in the first place and are granted a five-year period to fulfil the remaining conditions assigned. Many fisheries don’t ever meet these criteria and simply have their deadlines extended, as has been the case for stock management measures in the PNA fishery. Back in 2011, when the PNA fishery was granted its initial certification, there were several requirements attached. One of these was the development of harvest control rules (HCR). However, the development of HCR for this fishery has continuously been pushed back and ten years later it has not yet been completed. The PNA continues to operate and sell food under the blue tick and appears set to secure certification shortly for a further component: it’s FAD-associated purse seine sets.
The wrong definition of sustainability
Finally, arguably lying at the heart of MSC’s failings is that it’s working off an outdated and inadequate view of sustainability: in the current day and age we can’t simply focus on fish stock depletion to the exclusion of all else. Panellists raised in particular the issue of bycatch, the incidental capture of non-target species in the process of fishing using non-selective gear types such as trawl and purse seine nets. NGOs have repeatedly criticised MSC for its failure to get to grips with the potential impacts of fishing activity on non-target species in fisheries.
For example, the Gulf of Maine lobster fishery has just regained its MSC certification despite the risk of entanglement of critically endangered North Atlantic right whales.
It is not just marine life that is at risk, but people too. To ensure fisheries adhere to requirements, observers are present on board to monitor practices (albeit in numbers far below what is necessary). Last year, Human Rights at Sea published a report calling for greater protections for observers due to ‘incidents of unnecessary, unexplained, and unlawful observers’ deaths’, including on MSC certified tuna purse seine vessels. Panellists were quick to point out this will have to be addressed, but MSC are yet to do so adequately: at present the MSC Standard fails to deal with human rights issues other than forced and child labour in a superficial (and largely self-assessed) manner.
Fit for purpose?
Ultimately, eco-labels aren’t up to the job, but it doesn’t have to be that way. While it’s undeniably a significant challenge to ensure that one label can both drive and indicate environmentally and socio-economically sustainable fishing across the full range of global fisheries, such a label is a vital component of an effective ocean governance landscape.
Therefore, the conclusion of the debate was one of disappointment at the MSC failing to take the initiative and lead on finding solutions to the very problems it perpetuates. Instead of hiding behind its institutional gravitas, it should come forward be accountable to its actions and push the sector towards genuine sustainability. On The Hook believes that the only effective way of achieving the required reform is through a full, external review, an outcome which we will continue to pursue.
