Marine Stewardship Council: All certification schemes have their limits
Brendan May examines why even the best certification schemes – though vital – can’t solve everything
When I read about the recent ambush of the Marine Stewardship Council by various scientists in Nature magazine my immediate thought was one of sympathy for my successor as chief executive.
Flashbacks of ferocious rows between environmentalists and the seafood industry, with MSC caught in the middle, raced through my mind.
Two of the attack’s architects, Daniel Pauly and Sidney Holt, are not names that are easily dismissed. The latter is frequently referred to as the godfather of modern fisheries science. The former is an incredibly eloquent and media friendly scientist of the highest pedigree, and hence featured prominently in Charles Clover’s film The End of the Line.
The MSC’s present challenge is one that affects many organisations. Certification is under increasing scrutiny. Some of the pressure comes from groups that have never approved of market-based solutions in any case, but have found better arguments to make their case as more resources have been certified.
The concern around the future of certification as a sustainability tool divides into the following clusters of scepticism:
- Certification only deals with “low hanging fruit” – produce that was pretty good anyway.
- Certification is too issue-specific – its narrow focus makes it useless at a time when whole product lifecycles are what matters.
- Certification cannot be mainstreamed and is therefore of limited value other than in creating sporadic niche products here and there.
- The money spent on certification organisations could be better spent on global lobbying campaigns and more immediately tangible conservation efforts (eg marine reserves).
- There are now so many standards that unless there is serious rationalisation, the burden on producers to comply with many differing standards and companies to choose between them will ultimately lead to retailers “doing their own thing”.
- Certification groups are not dealing effectively with emerging issues – it takes so long to change one sector or issue that the boat is missed on other emerging crises.
- Certification groups make standards-setting so complicated they depart from the real world and create large bureaucracies that hurt rather than help producers.
- Certification groups have limited consumer recognition. More suitable partners for business are big global NGOs with high brand awareness.
- Certification allows for the endorsement of large-scale commercial operations that are willing to pay to be audited.
- Certification is hard to revoke.
Solutions that work
Some of these concerns are valid. No certification scheme has ever claimed to be the only game in town or the only workable solution. MSC is one of the many instruments that are required to save the world’s fisheries from collapse.
Yet there are valid debates to be had. Is it right that MSC should certify fishmeal used in aquaculture? Can a piece of fish be labelled as the best environmental choice if it has been flown in from thousands of miles away? Should the MSC consider what packaging encases its eco-friendly mackerel?
Most certification systems are narrowly focused on their issues. But businesses are increasingly preoccupied with the entire lifecycle of the products they sell. For certification marks, this poses a major challenge. They are not equipped with either the financial resources or the knowledge to tackle every impact of a product that bears their endorsement.
So what of the scientific row about the fish themselves? Sidney Holt retired to an olive farm in Umbria many years ago. Pauly has never, to my knowledge, participated in a single MSC fishery audit. Hundreds of scientists have done so, and one must presume they didn’t pluck their assessments out of thin air.
Both academics claim to have been deeply involved in the foundation of the MSC. But in five years as chief executive I only remember Holt talking to me about whaling – thankfully the MSC has yet to certify a whaling operation – and Pauly had already disengaged by the time I arrived at my desk there 12 years ago.
No MSC-certified fishery has ever collapsed. I know better than most the nervousness of the MSC in relying on the accuracy of its audits. The certification of Antarctic krill is doubtless as worrying to the present regime as the certification of Alaskan pollock was to mine.
But the MSC’s efforts, like those of all its peers in other sectors, are too important to be allowed to fail. The MSC will not solve all the world’s problems. But it will do more than Pauly and Holt.
Brendan May is founder of the Robertsbridge Group and a contributing editor to Ethical Corporation. He was chief executive of the Marine Stewardship Council from 1999 to 2004.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Comments
MSC Response
While this is not the place to engage in a detailed debate on the statements made by Mr May or Dr Holt, there are clearly some misunderstandings which need to be corrected.
While not all standard setters or publishers of seafood scorecards even have an Objections Procedure, the MSC has made this opportunity for a review of a fishery assessment. However, given the use of independent experts qualified in the target fishery both to conduct the assessment and to peer review the findings, the MSC Objections Procedure is not, and never was, an appeal to a higher court where a decision on the scores awarded against specific performance indicators can be over-ruled. To have created such a higher court body would require yet another group of fisheries science experts, qualified to conduct a fresh assessment. It is important for stakeholders to be able to challenge the process as managed by the Certification Body: but the scoring and determination are predicated on the selection of appropriate independent experts whose analysis and conclusions are then peer reviewed.
Dr Holt has unfortunately not understood this principle and is therefore frustrated by the scope of the Objections Procedure. However, Objections can and do result in changes, by the Certifier, to scores and additional conditions being attached to an assessment – as was the case with the recent Ross Sea Toothfish certification. It is also possible for the Certifier to rescore the assessment downwards as a result of the Independent Adjudicator’s findings, to the point where the fishery fails but this is a decision by the Certifier, not the Independent Adjudicator.
As regards the charges levied during the Objections Procedure, the FAO guidelines for ecolabels require a charge to be made. The MSC reduced this charge in 2010 and any stakeholder raising an Objection can apply for the fee to be waived by the Independent Adjudicator in case of hardship. The FAO guidelines also require the assessments to be conducted by independent third parties and not the standard setter, hence the “outsourcing of assessments” Dr Holt mentions – not a commercial decision but one in compliance with international recommendations. It is simply untrue to state the assessments are based on “minimal scientific competence” – experts involved in the assessment must include at least ten years experience in fishery management, 5 years research experience in the biology of the target species and 5 years experience in the impacts of the ecosystem within which the fishery is located.
The certifications in the Antarctic were conducted with relevant experts and considered sustainable as defined by the MSC standard, a definition developed by over 200 stakeholders from conservation, scientific, government and industry sectors. The end use of the fishery products bears no relevance to whether the fishery is sustainable and is not part of the MSC scope. Dr Holt may disagree with the panel of experts qualified in Antarctic fishery science who conducted these assessments; we stand by the process and determinations.
Andrew Mallinson
Marine Stewardship Council
MSC
This is not an appropriate place to try to respond to all Brendan's criticism of our Nature paper. However some of his remarks must be challenged.
How such a paper is an "ambush" is mysterious. I personally spent some time talk to the staff at MSC's London HQ, at their kind invitation, and they and several Trustees are well aware of my concerns.
Brendan defends certification and the involvement of industry in self-regulation. So do I.
My gripe is de facto corruption. I have been involved in three appeals by groups of eminent scientists against proposed certifications. My coauthors had also all been thus involved, regarding some same, some different fisheries.
In every case, after spending much time and finding the exorbitant charges demanded by MSC, their concerns have been brushed aside by legalistic responses. This has led to a widespread belief among professional outsiders that you get the certification you pay for. No interaction between the anonymous persons who conduct the original assessments and the appellants is permitted.
In all cases I know of the appeal process has proven to be a farce. I believe the trouble began at the beginning when MSC decided to outsource the assessments of industry's proposals and thus encouraged the creation of companies for that purpose and with minimal scientific competence. Subsequently the MSC's imposition of huge fees to be paid in advance by legitimate and highly skilled and well-informed professionals seeking to challenge certifications has corrupted the process and the original idea of the founders in WWF and Unilever.
The proposed certifications of new fisheries for which there is insufficient information to justly claim "sustainability", in the Antarctic (two toothfishes of species that live for a century or more, and the Antarctic krill, for feeding captive salmon and pigs and producing omega-3 oil), has been the last straw for many of us.