Measuring the Success of Seafood Ecolabelling - SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice - page 218

without sanctuaries. This is a misinterpretation of the MSC standard and certi-
fication outcomes, but because the standard is flexible, the fishery has not been
required to implement sanctuary zones to offset the impacts of fishing on the stock
or on coastal ecosystems. Rather, the MSC process has identified a lack of data
and knowledge about the fishery impacts, and has required the fishery to develop a
much better knowledge base about its impacts, so an appropriate set of mitigating
arrangements may be designed and implemented in due course, which may include
a set of sanctuary zones.
The lack of a clear and explicit MSC standard in relation to the role of sanctuaries,
and the positioning of the standard at a level lower than the requirement for sanc-
tuaries in MSC-certified fisheries have enabled the Western Rock Lobster Fishery
to defend effectively against the local pressure for implementation of sanctuaries.
As a result, it is suggested (Sutton 2003) that the MSC, rather than providing a
benefit, has had a detrimental effect on the sustainability of this fishery because
without the MSC certification, the fishery would have been under considerably
more pressure to design and implement sanctuaries as offsets for fishery impacts.
It is not clear if this local pressure for sanctuaries would have been effective, but
it is clear that the MSC standard is equivocal about the need for sanctuaries in an
industrial-scale fishery for lobsters in high biodiversity-value coastal ecosystems.
This flexibility is exploited by the fishery managers to avoid introducing sanctuar-
ies, which they consider unnecessary, but otherwise would probably be considered
to be an important part of ecological sustainability in this fishery. In this case, this
fishery shelters behind the MSC standard because it is flexible and unclear about
the need for sanctuaries to offset the effects of fishing.
The quality of a sustainability standard depends on the range of attributes, rele-
vance to the issues, clarity of expression, capacity to be used in a robust verification
(certification) process and the ready availability of a clear but non-technical version
for public information. While many of the issues addressed by a standard may be
highly technical, and may require substantial supporting technical information, the
standard itself should be able to be easily understood by moderately aware and
educated consumers.
Where the standard is to be applied in non-English speaking countries, the way
in which the standard translates (e.g. to French, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese) is
important when constructing the form of the text. Nonetheless, each key point of
the standard should be amplified through the use of one or more examples. This
is to ensure that consumers and all stakeholders are clear about what the standard
is, what the consequent product endorsement really stands for and what levels of
ecological improvement can be expected to occur as a result of applying the standard
to a fishery or aquaculture venture.
10.4.3 Scope and focus
If a standard is to be effective in capturing both consumer and producer interest, and
to leverage meaningful improvements in ecological sustainability, it should reflect